Subject: [Ieprep] Comments on GETS in draft-carlberg-ieprep-freamework

From: "Berg, Dennis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:11:05 -0500

Ken,

Some comments and suggestions on the GETS intro to your document.

Section 1.2, paragraph "the key aspect is that GETS...." The point about
probability is important, but there are actually two contrasts here:
{probabilistic, guaranteed} and {priority, preemption}.  Suggest the
following to make both clear:
*	"The key aspect of GETS is that is supports a probabilistic approach
to call completion through priority, as opposed to guaranteed approach
through preemption. This distinction is important because emergency services
like GETS are not allowed to tear down existing calls (i.e., seize
resources) in order to establish a GETS call.  Instead, GETS increases the
probability of call completion by providing priority in the contention for
assignment of limited resources required for the call.  Thus, the GETS
features focus on increasing the probability that a particular telephone
call will be established, but cannot guarantee call completion."

Section 1.2.1. 
*	"In the presence of this code point, Local Exchange Carriers (LEC)
will attempt (if necessary and if the option is supported) to route the call
through alternate inter-exchange carriers (IXC) if it cannot complete the
call through the default IXC"

Actually the feature described, Alternate Carrier Routing (ACR), is not
based upon the HPC code point. ACR is implemented using a commercial
Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) capability that is triggered based upon
the dialed number, in this case the GETS access number.

The two GETS features that are triggered by the HPC class mark are Trunk
Queuing (TQ) and Exemption from Restrictive Network Management Controls
(Ex-NMCs).

Suggest avoiding the complication of bringing up this other type of feature
and instead replacing the text above and to the end of the paragraph with:
*	In the presence of this code point, when a GETS call encounters a
restrictive network management control that has been activated to reduce
traffic overload to a congested route, the Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)
will provide the GETS call priority by exempting the call from this
restriction.  After receiving the exemption, if the GETS call finds all
circuits busy in the route, the LEC will provide further priority by queuing
the call for the next available circuit.  

Section 2. Final paragraph. 
*	"GETS users are authenticated using a PIN provided to the
telecommunications carrier, which signals approval back to the user's local
exchange over SS7."

Currently the IXCs authenticate GETS calls by differing methods.  There is
no communication of authentication back to the LEC where the call
originates.   However, when the call egresses the IXC to a LEC for
termination to the called party, the IXC passes the HPC class mark and the
terminating LEC provides priority treatment based upon that class mark.

Recommend deleting "...which signals approval back to the user's local
exchange over SS7" or changing to ""...which signals authentication to
subsequent networks via the HPC class mark."

Dennis Berg
GETS IC Deputy Program Manager, Engineering
DynCorp IS
703-818-4608

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:17:50 +0000

Hello Dennis,

> · "The key aspect of GETS is that is supports a probabilistic approach to 
> call completion through priority, as opposed to guaranteed approach through 
> preemption. This distinction is important because emergency services like 
> GETS are not allowed to tear down existing calls (i.e., seize resources) in 
> order to establish a GETS call.  Instead, GETS increases the probability of 
> call completion by providing priority in the contention for assignment of 
> limited resources required for the call.  Thus, the GETS features focus on 
> increasing the probability that a particular telephone call will be 
> established, but cannot guarantee call completion."

ok, i'll add the changes.

> · "In the presence of this code point, Local Exchange Carriers (LEC) will 
> attempt (if necessary and if the option is supported) to route the call 
> Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) capability that is triggered based
> upon the dialed number, in this case the GETS access number.
>
> · In the presence of this code point, when a GETS call encounters a 
> circuits busy in the route, the LEC will provide further priority by
> queuing the call for the next available circuit.  

ok.  i'll include most of the above.  i'll probably alter your last 
suggested sentence because the term "priority" tends to cause some
disagreement of what that exactly means and infers.

> · "GETS users are authenticated using a PIN provided to the 
> telecommunications carrier, which signals approval back to the user's
> local exchange over SS7."
> 
> termination to the called party, the IXC passes the HPC class mark and
> the terminating LEC provides priority treatment based upon that class
>  mark.

interesting.  the above seems to contradict earlier information i received
on the matter.  i'll cross check it just to make sure and add the suggested
changes accordingly.

thanks for the comments and suggested changes,

-ken

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