Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Preemption

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:50:56 -0500

I think the thing to remember is that pre-emption is permitted (on the PSTN)
in some nations and not permitted in others.
So it seems the first objective is not to REQUIRE anything that would look
like pre-emption when integrated with the PSTN in those countries.  In other
countries (and private networks) where (telephony) pre-emption is permitted,
it MAY be permissible to allow (but not require) something that looks like
pre-emption.
 
As an analogy, e-MLPP (in a GSM mobile network) allows pre-emption in those
juristictions which allow it, but does not require it in juristictions which
do not permit pre-emption.
 
In the telephony context, pre-emption refers to the "call".  So it is
possible that some types of packet level pre-emption (or selective packet
dropping) may be acceptable even in those contexts where call level
pre-emption is not permitted.  This would presumably be governed by SLAs for
QoS.
 
Janet Gunn

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:46 PM
To: ieprep
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Preemption

At 01:15 AM 3/19/2002 +0000, Ken Carlberg wrote:
>Cory,
>
>
>> In the IP Telephony Framework draft, non-preemptive action is stated
>> as a primary objective.  

As there is ongoing work *with* preemption (MLPP and Assured Services) that
has been frequently brought up in discussions on this list, stating that *a*
default objective is "non-preemptive" is appropriate IMO.

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/>