Re: Alignment with Diff-Serv terminology in draft-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt

["Victoria Fineberg" <fineberg@illinoisalumni.org>]

Hello All,

I think it is a very good idea to clean up the DS-TE
terminology.  When I was reading diff-te-reqts-06
I developed the following table:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Packet        Microflow     Externally      Network      FEC
handling      aggregation    observable     level view     view
                  on a link         router
                                         behavior
----------------------------------------------------------------
scheduling        BA           PHB            TA               FEC/TA
and dropping
-----------------------------------------------------------------
scheduling        OA          PSC        {TA}PSC    {FEC/TA}/PSC
only                                                    or CoS
                                                          or DS-CoS
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the table, "Network level view" stands for generalization of
aggregation from the link level to the network level; and
"FEC view" stands for network-level aggregation associated
with a FEC.

When you finalize the new terminology, perhaps you can include
a similar table in Version-07?

Regards,

Victoria

Victoria Fineberg
fineberg@illinoisalumni.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>
To: "Tewg (E-mail)" <te-wg@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: "Kathleen Nichols" <kmn@mountainfog.com>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:06 AM
Subject: Alignment with Diff-Serv terminology in draft-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt


Hello,

As part of the IESG last call on -reqts-06, Kathie commented on how to
improve the use of Diff-Serv terminology and constructs. With the help
of the Diff-Serv chairs (Brian and Kathie), we've come up with an
approach to address this. This message highlights the principle of this
approach. Please let us know if you have any issues/concerns with this.
If we don't hear any objections, we will post -reqts-07 by next Monday
incorporating the changes reflecting this approach.
Also, if anyone would like to see the working draft of -reqts-07 in
order to review the actual edits reflecting this approach, just drop me
a note off-line and I'll be happy to forward it.

Thanks

Francois

Principles of the approach:
===========================
  - incorporate the definition of PDB (from RFC3086 "Definition of
Differentiated Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for their
Specification")
  - use the term PDB when refering to the "treatement" of packets
in the DS domain (as opposed to the set of packets experiencing this
treatment)
  - relate the concept of PDB and TA{PSC} : "A given {TA}PSC will
receive the treatment of the PDB associated with the corresponding PSC"
  - systematically put quotation marks around the term "class of
service" and state that this term is used "loosely" and is used only "in
this document". This is to insist on the non-universality/looseness of
the term "class of service".
  - only use the term "class of service" in the first high-level
sections (ie problem statement + scenarios) - these sections use layman
terminology to introduce high level concepts of DS-TE, so "class of
service" is acceptable/preferable in that context.