Progressing BC Models RE: Progressing MAR

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Dimitry,

>> To my understanding all currently specified BC models (RD, 
>> MAM, MAR) can be
>> currently only considered for Experimental or Informational 
>> status at most.
>> 
>> Just to make sure that we are on the same page...
>> 

Good question.
I was personally assuming that, while some additional BC models may be
progressed as Experimental/Informational, RDM and MAM would be
progressed in the Standards Track. The WG has dicussed bothe for a
while, has agreed to specify both because they represent attractive
trade-offs for different environments and they are expected to be the
basis for DSTE implementations/deployments (at least for a while).
Specifying RDM and MAM as Standards Track RFCS does not mean that they
both MUST be implemented, it just means that if you claim support for
one of them you need to support all the MUSTs in that RFC.
Here again, I think we have a good analogy with Diff-Serv PHBs where the
WG specified the PHBs which the WG felt were very likely to be actually
used as Standards (EF, PHB, AF PHBs) and also has a procedure for
specifiying other PHBs as Experimental.

Cheers

Francois

>> Dimitry
>>