[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: FW: Review of draft-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt
- To: "Tewg (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- Subject: FW: FW: Review of draft-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:09:24 +0100
Here is the response to Francois' answer on Kathie's
comments. I have even added additional text from me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Nichols [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: woensdag 22 januari 2003 1:29
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Brian Carpenter (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: Review of draft-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt
> Look, I think the notion that "service providers contributed
> to this" doesn't make the examples more crisp.
To which I clearly MUST agree.
> However, I just don't think it's important enough to worry about.
> Similarly, if the authors are happy with the current wordings,
> then they should use them.
So... up to you if you try to make it "crsiper".
> The business of a sharing a scheduling class within a router
> still seems a bit low level for a notion of a traffic class
> that is defined on a network. The reason for this is that
> different scheduling mechanisms could be used in different
> routers within the same network to implement a particular
> class of service. It sounds like we're not communicating
> on this notion of a per-hop behavior being identical to a
> class of service. This is true even if the per hop behavior
> is further modified by saying that it shares a scheduling
I think that is something to try and address though.