This reads very good to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com [mailto:Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:54 AM
To: mip-qos@research.nokia.com
Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions
Can we condense the discussion about this issue of not being able to get old
QoS on the new path as the following requirement:
"The new end-to-end path may not support the old QoS agreement
because one or more routers or links are already at capacity. The QoS
mechanism MUST have provisions to handle this situation. It MAY also
be required to inform the MN about the impending QoS degradation. The
action taken in response to this situation (adapt, gracefully degrade,
re-negotiate or tear down) and the decision point (MN or service
provider policy) of the action are solution specific issues."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marc.greis@nokia.com [mailto:marc.greis@nokia.com]
> Sent: 18. April 2001 11:29
> To: mip-qos@research.nokia.com
> Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions
>
>
> Mike,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Michael Thomas [mailto:mat@cisco.com]
> > Sent: 18 April, 2001 9:28 AM
>
> > As far as requirements goes, are there any
> > cases where this is not purely a local policy
> > decision of the mobile node? If there are, then
> > there should be a requirement that the mobile
> > node be the final arbiter of what is "acceptible
> > QoS" based on local policy.
>
> I agree that the mobile node should make the final decision
> (though you
> probably can not prevent the service provider from making the
> decision for
> the mobile node). However, I think that creates the
> additional requirement
> that there needs to be a mechanism for informing the mobile
> node of the fact
> that the QoS has been downgraded. I don't think that it is a
> good solution
> (in all cases) to wait for the user to notice that the QoS has become
> inacceptable.
>
> > Note that this may actually be a requirement on MIP/SEAMOBY.
>
> Actually, this may be an even broader requirement for QoS
> mechanisms in
> general. Mobility is not the only case where QoS can degrade.
>
> Marc
>