RE: Charter questions

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

Hi Bert,

I took another look at the access-bind PIB and I disagree with your
assertion. 

The whole point of that work is about binding all those diverse signaling
protocols so they may work together AND the required device resources may be
properly allocated in a coordinated fashion. That certainly seems a good
thing to do and within the charter of a resource allocation protocol.

I hardly see how a network can work without giving some semblance as to how
these many diverse signaling mechanisms (RSVP, RSVP-TE, SIP, etc.) can work
together given limited and already partially provisioned network resources.
Their approach in the Access-Bind PIB seems to me to be an elegant way to
deal with this complex problem.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: Kulkarni, Amol; 'rap@ops.ietf.org'
> Cc: 'Randy Bush'
> Subject: RE: Charter questions
> 
> Appology. I meant draft-ietf-rap-acct-fr-pib-01.txt
> instead of draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-06
> 
> Cut and paste error. That framework-pib doc was one that
> I had in my ciut and paste buffer too.... Guess why?
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kulkarni, Amol [mailto:amol.kulkarni@intel.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 1:02 AM
> > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'rap@ops.ietf.org'
> > Cc: 'Randy Bush'
> > Subject: RE: Charter questions
> >
> >
> >
> > Bert,
> >
> > I assume you meant draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr-pib-01 when you wrote
> > draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-06.
> >
> > The [FEEDBACKFWRK] and [FEEDBACKPIB] DO NOT define a new accounting
> > protocol. They are simply a tool for providing feedback on provisioned
> > policy usage so that future policies may be 'tweaked' for better
> > performance. As such they fall within the purview of COPS-PR
> > and PIBS; and
> > just clarify certain points regarding feedback which are
> > ALREADY PRESENT in
> > COPS-PR.
> >
> > Also, there is an extra link on the RAP page which points to
> > an old draft.
> > The latest drafts can be found here:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr
> wk-01.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr-pib-01.txt
> 
> Thanks,
> Amol
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 7:17 AM
> To: 'rap@ops.ietf.org'
> Cc: Randy Bush
> Subject: Charter questions
> 
> Dear RAP WG,
> 
> Various people are asking me what the RAP WG is doing and
> if it is staying with in its (intended) WG charter.
> 
> The questions are of the type of:
> 
> - draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-06
>   the thought of yet another accounting protocol does
>   raise serious questions.
> 
> - draft-ietf-rap-access-bind-00.txt,
>   which *is* in fact a whole new AAA protocol,
>   under the guise of a COPS extension.
> 
> - it looks to me like COPS is being proposed as a AAA
>   protocol for network access -- including 802.11,
>   Dialup, and even Mobile IP, as well as SIP and possibly
>   a few other things. That pretty much covers the scope
>   of AAA usage.
> 
> As you can imagine, these type of comments come from the
> AAA side of the house.
> 
> Now... in the RAP WG charter, I do read:
> 
>    For the work on the [FEEDBACKFWRK] and [FEEDBACKPIB],
>    the WG will work with other WGs (like AAA WG) to prevent
>    duplication and overlapping solutions.
> 
> So what kind of action has the WG taken or WILL the WG take
> in order to make sure that we do not overlap or compete
> in this space?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert Wijnen
> (explicitly speaking as AD)