FW: FW: Review of draft-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Here is the response to Francois' answer on Kathie's
comments. I have even added additional text from me.

Thanks,
Bert 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Nichols [mailto:nichols@packetdesign.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
> constraint.
> 
I think that is something to try and address though.

Bert
> 	Kathie