Subject: Re: The problem of the framework draft

From: HJ Sandick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:46:18 -0500

Ohta-san,

We seem to be going in circles.  As previously stated, we are glad to include
your model in the framework document.  But, we still disagree on two key points:

1) Requiring a Setup Protocol

The framework document discusses that there is a difference between QoS Routing
and resource reservation protocols.  Because of this the framework does not
assume that all deployments using QoS Routing will use RSVP, or any s
etup/signaling  protocol.  A good example of this are the recent differentiated
services discussions regarding loose "guarantees" in the backbone that don't
require signaling.

2) Requiring Link State QoS Routing Protocols

Your approach advocates that the underlying protocol be a QoS enhanced link
state routing protocol.   We don't feel that there is a technical basis for
such a limiting requirement.  Indeed, at the April IETF in Memphis Fred Baker
made the comment that he would be unhappy if the framework document ruled out
QoS Routing Distance Vector protocols.

Regards,

Hal

Hal Sandick
IBM, NHD
(919) 254-4614
sandickh@ibmusm20 (internal ibm)
[email-masked] (external)

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 98 18:40:38 JST

Hal;

> your model in the framework document.  But, we still disagree on two key points:

Who are we?

> services discussions regarding loose "guarantees" in the backbone that don't

As the current draft says, it's a ToSR issue.

> such a limiting requirement.

As already explained, it is a limitation to make QoSR scale.

> Indeed, at the April IETF in Memphis Fred Baker

It was a question from Fred at Kuala Lumpur on my INET paper and
I already explained Fred on why DV QoSR does not scale.

Fred gave no further counter argument.

So, who are "we" still disagreeing on two key points?

							Masataka Ohta