Subject: Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP SIP REQ-6 to REQ-10

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:51:15 EDT

In a message dated 10/9/2002 9:26:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Also, in order to make progress, it may be useful to "forgive" some 
> obviousness in the document and heave this thing (after another round) 
> over the fence to SIPPING, even if one could save a few bytes in the RFC 
> and I-D archive.
> 

[MAP] It's become clear to me, with the ongoing discussion under "Policy and 
labels", that this requirement REQ-7, as currently written, could be 
misinterpreted by some in the future, and may itself become a hinderance to 
making progress.

I would suggest that it be rephrased to refer to SIP specific terminology and 
be very explicit about what the requirement is. Otherwise, this requirement 
should be deleted. I would suggest the following:

REQ-7: Separation of indication and policy. The choice of Header Field Values 
to indicate priority levels should not in themselves describe a particular 
detailed treatment, as it is likely that this depends on the nature of the 
resource and local policy. Instead, it should indicate a particular named 
policy. As an example, instead of specifying a Header Field Value of "Queue, 
no preemption, limit to 3 minutes", the request should indicate a Value of 
"High priority", while the local policy in some or all devices is to provide 
such treatment to "High Priority" calls.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 15:18:20 -0400

On Friday, Oct 11, 2002, at 13:51 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> [MAP] It's become clear to me, with the ongoing discussion under 
> "Policy and labels", that this requirement REQ-7, as currently 
> written, could be misinterpreted by some in the future, and may itself 
> become a hinderance to making progress.

So far, everyone except you seems to be able to understand the written
meaning quite clearly.

For the record, I don't think there is a problem with clarity.

Ran

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 18:35:02 -0400

Since the requirement document doesn't specifically call for header 
fields and we were asked to avoid pre-supposing a particular SIP 
solution, I'd rather not call out the actual protocol details (header) 
at this time.

(This isn't completely disingenuous. There are, after all, several 
possible SIP indications, such as a special new SIP method, a sip: or 
tel: URI parameter, a SIP header, a special SIP payload or some 
yet-to-be-specified out-of-band mechanism. Whether all of them make 
sense is a SIP WG discussion to be had, based on these requirements.)

> [MAP] It's become clear to me, with the ongoing discussion under "Policy 
> and labels", that this requirement REQ-7, as currently written, could be 
> misinterpreted by some in the future, and may itself become a hinderance 
> to making progress.
> 
> I would suggest that it be rephrased to refer to SIP specific 
> terminology and be very explicit about what the requirement is. 
> Otherwise, this requirement should be deleted. I would suggest the 
> following:
> 
> REQ-7: Separation of indication and policy. The choice of Header Field 
> Values to indicate priority levels should not in themselves describe a 
> particular detailed treatment, as it is likely that this depends on the 
> nature of the resource and local policy. Instead, it should indicate a 
> particular named policy. As an example, instead of specifying a Header 
> Field Value of "Queue, no preemption, limit to 3 minutes", the request 
> should indicate a Value of "High priority", while the local policy in 
> some or all devices is to provide such treatment to "High Priority" calls.
> 
> Mike Pierce
> Artel