I agree with Tony in this case (see my long portmanteau reply just sent).
Brian
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> > 9. this form is MUTABLE:
> >
> > If the intention is to enable contractual aggregation needed
> > by e.g. the
> > diffserv model, domain must be able to remark the value
> > (change it), but
> > also the new value needs to be taken from the set of
> > standardized values, so
> > that the semantics of the value is always unambiguous. The
> > mutability allows
> > cutting off "freeloaders" (as put so eloquently by Steve
> > Blake), and enables
> > the diffserv aggregation model.
>
> I am sorry, but this is BS. The diffserv model already
> has a mutable field giving the provider ultimate control
> and doesn't need a second one. In fact allowing this
> proposed use to be mutable will ensure that subsiquent
> providers have no clue what the origin intended. If the
> provider wants to cut people off, it can set the TC to 0,
> or drop the packet. Allowing providers to modify these
> bits adds no value to the existing diffserv capabilities.
>
> Tony
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
"We shall need a number of efficient librarian types
to keep us in order." - Alan Turing, 1947.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
