Subject: Re: [Ieprep] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:11:11 EDT

In a message dated 6/12/02 9:14:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >        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 ???.
> 

Just to clarifiy, the priority scheme in Q.735 is exactly the same as the US 
defense network.

Mike Pierce

---

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:16:24 -0400

Do you know where Q.735 is, or is planned to be, implemented?  Is it on the
PSTN, or on a "private" telecom network?  Who (if anyone) would be the
"owner" of the q735 namespace?

-----Origi nal Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:11 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] (no subject)

Mike Pierce 

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:44:05 EDT

> "owner" of the q735 namespace?

I don't know of anyplace where Q.735 is used in a "public" network. But I'm 
sure it is implemented in switches that also provide public network service. 
It's intended use was clearly within a "private" telecom network, such as the 
Defense Switched Network. But remember that part of a "private" network may 
share physical resources with a "public" network.

Your question on the proposed q735 namespace is one that I need to address to 
justify the creation of such a namespace. I know that I haven't done a 
complete  job of this.

First, no one needs to "own" the namespace. The intention is a very limited 
one - providing the interworking between two ISUP-based networks through a 
SIP-based part. Anyone could use it for this purpose. The intention was to 
allow the gateways to perfom a straightforward mapping, without any 
interpretation, of the values in the IAM to a similar one in the INVITE. (For 
example, the dsn namespace requires that the gateway understand the meaining 
of the character "FLASH" and convert it to a binary value 2.)

Of course, as other discussions on ISUP-SIP mapping and encapsulation are 
showing, there may already be other ways to support this interworking 
scenario. The q735 namespace was essentially an extension to the ISUP to SIP 
mapping, with the idea that the mapping needed to include everything that 
might need interworking between ISUP and SIP. Perhaps it can be handled with 
pure encapsulation, if its relation with mapping can be better defined.

Mike Pierce

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:52:47 -0400 (EDT)

from Ran's note I guess I was not clear

what I tried to say was that we do not have an understanding of what
an EPS  phone call *is* in an Internet context

I suppose that one could say that such a call must have a data path that
acts basically like a dedicated private wire but that is not what the
Internet is all about and it would be far from the most efficient way
to provide for this service, and what does one say, if anything, about 
the signaling path?

this list has been talking about prioritizing trafic (and making 
a requrement to tell SIP proxies, PSTN gateways, SIP nodes and who
knows what else what priority to use and I do not know that 
strict priority is even the right concept (Fred has been talking
about more complex concepts such as diffserv AF) 

so when we say "high level requirements" I am not sure we
know what basic concepts the requirements need to fit into in the IP
network

in the gateway to the PSTN is seems clear that we need to have a way to 
tell that gateway what PSTN eps functions (for example MLPP) are
being requested - but what do we want to tell (high level concept,
not N-levels of priority, which is an implementaion concept) a SIP
Proxy to do, or a router in the signaling path, or a router in the data path

Scott