<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Next up:<br>
<blockquote>Define Delivery Point Specification as a separate
parameter, to clarify the relationship between it and the Delivery
Specification.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The "implicitly associated" service mode of
the
Delivery Point Specification should be made explicit, i.e. a field of
the Delivery Specification. This allows the definition of the mapping
of service mode to UTS to be made explicit. This allows for
a generic AMS implementation to be developed that is configured
with supported service modes depending upon available UTS's.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The service mode should consider a third
issue of message
delivery, that is to say "timeliness". This can be in the
form of a deadline, a delivery time with associated allowable jitter
(before
and after). This can then be used for time-slot architectures, such
as 1553 or TTA.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">My
proposed disposition is this:<br>
</span>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Not accepted.<span style=""> </span>The
present scheme for mapping delivery point to service mode by reference
to
transport service (UTS) is flexible and efficient, and it provides all
the
capability contemplated above.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Delivery deadline was originally included in
the QoS
specification but was removed in October 2005 after discussion within
the
Working Group (see email from <st1:date year="2005" day="30" month="9">September
30, 2005</st1:date>).<span style=""> </span>Since it is a
specialized capability that is of value in real-time applications,
propose we
define an additional standard User Operation that provides this service.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Stuart, a couple of points to pursue here.
First, is there some aspect of automatically mapping service mode to
UTS that you believe the current system should support but doesn't? If
so, can you explain a little more fully and maybe give an example? One
comment I'd offer here is that implicit (rather than explicit) mapping
of QoS to UTS delivery point is a feature that I believe was lifted
directly from the MTS requirements.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Second, the timeliness dimension of message
delivery (deadline, jitter) is indeed an issue, but I think it's a
requirement that can only be satisfied by the UTS itself; as such, it's
exactly the sort of thing I would think we'd want to map flow label
into. Would you accept that as a resolution to your second point? On
reconsideration I think that's a lot better answer than using a
standard User Operation.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Scott<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<br>
</body>
</html>