Subject: Re: Flow Specification Daffynitions

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 21:18:43 -0800

At 9:56 PM 11/14/95, John Wroclawski wrote:
>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).

this may be true. Since I have never seen them, I cannot say whether it is
or not.

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

---

From: Don Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:17:25 -0800 (PST)

>From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
>
>
>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 like to second this notion.  It will certainly make it
much easier for Fred and I to point fingers at each other when something
doesn't work :-)

Don
email - [email-masked], phone - +1 503 297 1580, fax - +1 503 297 1772