Subject: latest draft of guaranteed

From: Craig Partridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 16:26:05 -0700

Hi folks:

The latest version of the guaranteed draft (version 05) is now available
from the IETF Internet Drafts directory.

This draft incorporates all comments I've received on the previous draft.

Only two changes that people are likely to notice:

    * I've changed some of the parameter numbers after consulting with
    John Wroclawski about keeping parameter spaces clearly distinct.

    * I've added the RSVP data structures in Appendix I.  There's some
    discussion of consolidating all the data structures from the different
    services into one document -- comments welcome.

Craig

---

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:05:32 -0700

At 4:03 PM 7/13/96, Craig Partridge wrote:
>I believe the right answer is that in the absence of a standard for supporting
>multiple services concurrently (e.g. service replacement and other nasty
>heterogeneity functions), the sender gets to pick which service gets used
>(or advertises multiple times...)

that's not consistent with anything that's been said in intserv or RSVP to
date. What service is chosen is entirely at the discretion of the reciever.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When people run around and around in circles we say they are crazy.
When planets do it we say they are orbiting.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 11:16:16 -0400

Hi Craig,
	A minor point.  Is the 'RSVP Flowspec' defined in Appendix 1
intended for use with both IPv4 and IPv6?  If so, the 'composed MTU'
parameter needs to be 32bits to accommodate v6.

Lou

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 08:46:39 PDT

*> 
  *> Silly question:
  *> 
  *> When a sender sends a PATH message, how does he know that the receiver is
  *> going to request guaranteed service? As in, how does he know

Fred,

We have said all along that different services cannot be merged.
[Since you are fond of quoting your code, I will quote ours: in the
procedure Compare_Flowspecs() it says:

	/* For now, regard two different services as incompatible.
	 */
	if (sp1->issh_service != sp2->issh_service)
		return SPECS_INCOMPAT;

Therefore, all participants in a given application must have an out-of-band
agreement on whether G or CL will be used.

  *> 
  *>         (a) whether to put in the adspec, and

There may be a minor RSVP nit here... perhaps there needs to be a flag
in the API that a sender can set to ask that an adspec be originated.

Bob

  *>         (b) which set of names (the controlled load numbers or the
  *>             guaranteed numbers, or some other qos spec's numbers) for the
  *>             parameters to use?
  *> 
  *> Wouldn't it be better to make the number spaces overlap to whatever extent
  *> they can?
  *> 
  *> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  *> When people run around and around in circles we say they are crazy.
  *> When planets do it we say they are orbiting.
  *> 
  *> 
  *>