Subject: [Ieprep] (no subject)

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:12:55 +0100

Henning,

>  Below are some requirements for such a mechanism:
>
>        Not specific to one domain: The mechanism should not be specific
>             to one country or particular priority mechanism. For
>             example, there are currently at least four priority schemes
>             in widespread use: Q.735, with five levels, the U.S.
>             defense network and NATO with five levels, the United
>             States GETS (Government Emergency Telecommunications
>             Systems) scheme with implied higher priority and the
>             British GTPS system ???.

the above may need a bit of clarification. I think one could argue that 
a specific NameSpace represents a "particular priority mechanism".

I can gather that what you are saying is that the NameSpace should not
reflect a specific organization or implementation.  And you also want to
avoid a one-to-one correlation between a namespace and geographic/geo-
political boundaries.  thats fine.

one the other hand, I assume that NameSpace(s) that correlate to a
standard like MLPP (from ITU) would be fine.  valid interpretation?

also, would it be fine to state that private or experimental NameSpace(s) 
could be defined, but they simply would not be registered with IANA.  We
kind of have that with the current diff-serv allocation of code points.
The one difference with the diff-serv analogy is that I do NOT think there
will be a need to additional parameter stating whether the NameSpace is
public or private.  if the NameSpace is not one listed by IANA, then by
default its private.

also, in page 3 you have the following...

>   Priority mechanisms can be roughly categorized by whether they use a
>   priority queue for resource attempts or whether they preempt existing
>   resource uses (e.g., calls). The choice between these mechanisms
>   depends on the operational needs and characteristics of the network,
>   e.g., on the number of active requests in the system and the fraction
>   of prioritized calls. Generally, if the number of prioritized calls
>   is small compared to the system capacity and the system capacity is
>   large, it is likely that another call will naturally terminate in
>   short order when a higher-priority call arrives. Thus, it is
>   conceivable that the system indication can sometimes cause
>   preemption, while otherwise it just

...it looks like the last sentence has been accidently chopped off.

-ken

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

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:18:44 +0100

sorry.  my previous message was for Henning's Requirements for Resource
Priority Mechanisms draft  <draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req-00.txt>

i forgot to add the draft name to the subject line

-ken