RE: [MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions

[Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com]

Hi Mike:

We do not intend to deliberate on QoS requirements of a generic
QoS protocol. The focus is to enumerate "only those requirements 
that stem from mobility". The requirement stated below seems to me
as the requirement of a generic QoS protocol and not a result of
host mobility. 

Another similar requirement came up earlier which is about "robustness 
against node failures or special MIP node failures (FA etc.)". I myself
do not think that this is a consequence of node mobility. However, there 
should be a general consensus on this issue among the mailing list members
before we decide on way or the other.

Hemant

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Michael Thomas [mailto:mat@cisco.com]
> Sent: 19. April 2001 11:34
> To: mip-qos@research.nokia.com
> Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] Re: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the only question I have is whether we
> should be writing down requirements for which
> there isn't actually a problem in the current crop
> of protocols. This capability as written is
> already available with RSVP. I sure hope we're not
> headed down the path of writing requirements for a
> new protocol from a clean slate here. IMO, we
> should concentrate on the inadequacies of the
> current crop with respect to mobility. Even if
> there were a new protocol, we wouldn't be writing
> its general requirements, after all.
> 
> ObReq: * QoS signaling protocols should
>          differentiate between intentional
>          topology changes and flapping with their
>          damping strategies.
> 
> 		   Mike
>