Subject: Flow Specification Daffynitions

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:40:05 -0800

At the moment my code (and all implementations I am aware of) is using the
ISI flow specification. To date, I have seen specifications for the
services that Integrated Services wants us to use, but I have yet to see
posted as an internet draft the actual format of the flow specifications.

I am trying to put a product into engineering field test, and have
requirements from all quarters. This forces me to make a decision as to
what flow spec formats I will support.

I think it is only fair to document the ISI flow spec as what we are
calling it right now - a Type 1 Flow Specification, and let Integrated
Services use Type 2. If int-serv ever gets around to spelling it out, we
can support it in the next release, and if they don't then we can let them
play with it in the lab and feel wonderful about doing so, and still deploy
product.

I would prefer to not have to reverse engineer the ISI code (although that
is eminently doable, being published and all) to do this. I would prefer
that the RSVP draft spell out the  flow spec, its fields, and their values
and uses.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Some ideas are so crazy that only an intellectual could believe them...
        George Orwell

---

From: John Wroclawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 21:56:11 -0500

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)

Fred,

The internet-draft deadline for Dallas is next week. A large number of
drafts will be out before then.

You'll find, if you choose to implement the int-serv services, that
the isi flowspec does not contain the parameters needed to invoke them
as they now stand (among other reasons, because the fields needed to
manage link overhead, peak rate information, and packet
(non)fragmentation are missing).

			-john