RE: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>]

Francois,

>> For DSTE to work, at least one, common BC model MUST be 
>> supported by all LSRs.  How do we ensure that?
 
> From a practical perspective, not mandating an exact set of PHBs in
> Diff-Serv has not affected Diff-Serv interoperability because the
> Diff-Serv WG was careful in specifying a reasonable number of PHBs so
> that vendors could easily support a largely overlapping set.
> Requirements from Network Administrators dictated what was the right
> overlapping set to support for various environments.
> 
> For DS-TE, practically speaking, you would ensure that you have at least
> one (or most probably two) BC models supported on all DSTE boxes by:
> 	- TEWG being careful and specifying only a reasonable number of
> BC models (e.g. RDM + MAM for now, maybe one or two more in the 
> future if needed) 
> 	- Network Administrators dictating which BC Model they need for
> their own deployment (e.g. some requesting RDM, some requesting MAM, and
> maybe in a few years some requesting Model 4...).
> then in practice there would not be any DS-TE interoperability issues
> because vendors will support the required set of BC Models.
> 
> Could that work for you?

Your proposal is assuming that vendors will support all of the 'reasonable number' (= 2) of BC models (RDM & MAM).  That being the case, I don't see why we just don't mandate support of the 2 BC models.  Many participants in the TEWG meeting already supported that proposal (including the authors of the BC drafts, you, Wai Sum, and me).  I suggest we try to get consensus on that since it will ensure interoperability.  We will not get interoperability if some vendors support one BC model and other vendors another BC model.

Thanks,
Jerry