Subject: RE: [Ieprep] requirements document(s) to SIPPING

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:40:51 -0400

I agree we don't want to follow this tangent into any detail. 

 I thought the relevant point was whether or not dealing with IEPREP traffic
could impose enough of a processing load on the [switch/router/gateway/etc.]
that processing capacity (rather than communications bandwidth) might be the
bottleneck.  Thus, whether or not any kind of prioritization/labeling with
regard to [switch/router/gateway/etc.] would be relevant.

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Gunn, Janet; King Kimberly S.; Ieprep (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] requirements document(s) to SIPPING

> I could see that becoming an interesting discussion point as to if the
higher
> queue priority is an absolute (one never serves an n-1 queue if there is
an
> entry in the n queue) or relative (after serving a handful of n queue
entries,
> we serve 1 from the n-1 queue. This could be recursive.)

Before we rathole here: this is far outside the scope of the WG. This is 
an implementation issue. We're not even specifying the algorithms at 
this point, let alone the precise queueing mechanism. The discussion 
started to simply state that such differential request treatment is 
*possible*, in many different ways, none of which will likely be 
specified in the IETF.
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:43:59 -0400

> regard to [switch/router/gateway/etc.] would be relevant.

Indeed. I thought I had addressed this issue in an earlier message 
(short summary: sometimes, depending on what a proxy does with 
requests), after which somebody mentioned that prioritizing would be too 
difficult.