Subject: [Ieprep] Multiple namespaces for resource_priority

From: "Berg, Dennis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:48:47 -0400

James,

As I was drafting comments to the Resource-Priority Header ID, I realized
that I am not clear on the issue of multiple namespaces.  Specifically, how
will multiple namespaces be harmonized, or will it be necessary to have only
one namespace operative in a given network?  

A similar issue is arising right now in the NCS's Industry Requirements
development for the extension of GETS to wireless (called WPS - Wireless
Priority Service).  The proposal is on the table to use the optional MLPP
Precedence field in the ISUP IAM to pass the WPS priority levels through the
landline network.  The issue is whether there will be interoperability
conflicts in such a use with any networks that may have implemented a
service using MLPP, even if the service is via a Private Virtual Network.
Similarly, in the wireless networks, where eMLPP functionality is being
adapted for WPS, there is an interoperability issue around preemption.
Apparently, when executing preemption, the system can consider all calls
from all eMLPP subscribers as candidates for preemption.  The way around
this seems to be that each subscriber has a parameter for "capable-capable"
and "non-preemptible".   This may allow two services to coexist in the same
network, but only if one service does not want any preemption as part of the
service.

The list has had some discussion of using a "public network" or "public
network-{country}" namespace and distinguishing this from namespaces that
are intended for use in private IP networks.  I suppose that could work, but
the criterion for "public network" is unclear.  If a traditional
circuit-switched "long distance" network migrates to an IP transport, then
that's a case of a public network?  As long as services are "sold" on the
network, it is public?  Does "public" require governance by some Government
jurisdiction?  So how could this be applied to the Internet?

Concerning ownership and control of namespaces, the AINSI standard that
specifies the HPC Codepoint (used for GETS) for the IAM Calling Party
Category states that the Office of the Manager, National Communication
System drove the standard.  In our subcontracts with the vendors to develop
the HPC capability, DynCorp, as a subcontractor to the OMNCS, has required
the vendors to include a statement in their documentation that the
functionality is under the control of the OMNCS and that it may not be
utilized without their coordination and consent. We will be including a
similar restriction in the subcontracts with vendors for the WPS
functionality in wireless products.

Will send you a marked-up version of the resource priority document shortly.

Dennis Berg
GETS & WPS Integration Contractor, Deputy Program Manager, Engineering
DynCorp IS
703-818-4608

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:00:53 -0400

Thanks for your comment. A quick (non)reply: This is policy outside the 
protocol. If a gateway supports two orderings A and B (here, represented 
by namespaces), they are apples and oranges. It's up the operator to 
decide how many oranges are equivalent to an apple. (In reality, the 
operator is likely to have to discuss this choice with its customers, 
particularly the ones drawing the shorter straw.)

I don't think any IETF spec can say how a particular namespace relates 
to any other namespace. All we have is a partial ordering, not a total 
ordering.