Subject: Re: [Ieprep] requirements document(s)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:34:29 EDT

In a message dated 9/19/2002 7:45:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> MAP] 2) It is unknown how to interpret the statement that "labels for
> different layers are NOT required to be related to each other". The
> fundamental requirement detailed in draft-pierce-sipping-assured-service-02
> presumes that the "label" which identifies the call level priority will be
> mapped into a "label" which identifies the packet layer priority or
> preferential treatment class. This statement seems to explicitly say this is
> not required. 
> 
> [KSK]  Saying something is NOT required is not equivalent to saying it is
> forbidden.  
> 

[MAP] Yes, I realize that the actual words taken literally don't mean it is 
forbidden, but I'm sure that many will read it that way (especially 
non-English speakers). If we really want to say that, it would be better to 
word it "There is no requirement that the labels be related." or to say 
nothing.

However, the previous drafts I have submitted and the presentations for 
"Assured Service" have been based on a relationship between the call level 
label (the priority that the user wants and signals) and the packet level 
label (that might control, for example, DiffServ treatment of the packets).

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 14:51:19 +0100

> [KSK]  Saying something is NOT required is not equivalent to saying it is 

i can add the above to make sure there is no ambiguity.

> [MAP] Yes, I realize that the actual words taken literally don't mean it
> is forbidden, but I'm sure that many will read it that way (especially
> non-English speakers). If we really want to say that, it would be better
> to word it "There is no requirement that the labels be related." or to
> say nothing. 
>
> "Assured Service" have been based on a relationship between the call
> level label (the priority that the user wants and signals) and the
> packet level label (that might control, for example, DiffServ treatment
> of the packets). 

the only difference I find between your suggested wording of "There is no 
requirement that the labels be related"  and "Labels from different layers
are NOT required to be related to each other" is that yours would mean that
the 5 labels of MLPP would not be related to each other.  this is because
you remove the word 'layer' from my original text.  I don't believe that 
was your intent.

However, I can probably alter some words so that the item basically states
that labels from different layers may compliment each other, but are not 
required to have the same semantics or attributed characterics.

-ken

I can also restate the contentious section to say that 

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep