Service Level Specifications and Usage BOF (sls)

Wednesday, December 13 at 1530-1730
===================================

CHAIRS: Yves T'Joens (yves.tjoens@alcatel.be)
        Raju Rajan (rajan@research.att.com)

DESCRIPTION:

   Providing QoS enabled services across a diffserv enabled network is
   often closely linked with the negotiation of a Service Level
   Specification (as defined in draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-03.txt)
   over the administrative boundary where the service is provided.

   The SLSU BOF will examine whether a Working Group should be chartered
   to design a formal extensible model for Service Level Specifications
   and requirements for the negotiation of Service Levels across
   (administrative) boundaries. Based on input from the BOF a sharply
   focused proposal with milestones will be submitted, if need be.

   The need to have an agreed set of Service Level Specification
   parameters and semantics is twofold.

   A formal, extensible specification would enable automation of the
   service negotiation process. Providers and customers would benefit
   from the faster turnaround of service fulfillment. Providers would
   continue to enjoy flexibility in designing their service offerings,
   and customers would enjoy independence from their point of
   attachment.

   Second, the design and the deployment of services across a multi-
   vendor and multi-provider environment requires a standardized set of
   semantics for Service Level Specifications being negotiated at
   different locations: (a) between the customer and the service
   provider (b) within an administrative domain (for intra-domain SLS
   negotiation purposes) and (c) between administrative domains (for
   inter-domain negotiation purposes).

   While the semantics of the Service Level Specification need to be
   defined in a vendor-independent, interoperable and scalable manner,
   the syntax of the specification may be represented in different
   specification languages, eg., CIM, LDAP schemata, XML DITs, etc.
   Similarly, while the semantics of message exchanges during service

             November 30, 2000                    [Page 1]

   LSU BoF                         - 2 -

   negotiation need to be specified, the actual packet formats may
   depend on the protocol chosen for such a negotiation.

   The notion of customer and provider as used within this description
   refer to a service requesting and a service offering entity
   respectively, and does not imply the specification of any particular
   business model.

   The BOF will be used to gain input on the scope of the proposed
   working group, such that the goal of semantic specification is
   fulfilled, together with a narrow but representative syntactic set.

Available documentation

  draft-manyfolks-sls-framework-00.txt

  draft-tequila-sls-00.txt

  draft-salsano-aquila-sls-00.txt

  draft-sls-somefolks-00.txt

AGENDA:

- Agenda Bashing (5')

- Presentations on requirements for the SLS from providers
  Christian Jacquenet - France Telecom (10')
  Hamid Gharib - British Telecom (10')
  Paul Bartoli - AT&T (10')
  4th provider is still looking at attending San Diego (10')

- Short intro to various efforts and related work
  Policy Framework Group - Ed Elleson (10')
  Internet2 QBone Effort - Ben Teitelbaum (10')
  draft-tequila-sls-00.txt - Danny Goderis (10')
  draft-salsano-aquila-00.txt - Stefano Salsano (10')

- Proposed charter review / Discussion of the proposed WG goals /
  choice of protocol independent specification language (PCIM?) (35')

- Determine whether there is enough interest to form a WG


Subscription to e-mail list via http://www.ist-tequila.org/sls.html