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

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:28:19 -0400

Mike,

"The above seems so intuitively obvious to me that I wonder why it is even
necessary to state it. Or else, maybe it has some completely different
meaning or connotation than what I think it means. "

It may have a different meaning.  It makes sense to allow labels in
standards.  For example, I might want to have labels saying CodeBlue,
CodeRed, CodeGreen.  These labels just make it easy to identify things.  

But it is policy that gives them meaning and policy might be different in
your network than mine.  You might say CodeBlue traffic means "Queue me
first, drop lower priority traffic before dropping my packets" where you
define lower priority is CodeGreen.  I might have a different policy on my
network.  

Also, you might find the policy didn't produce the behavior that you wanted.
You don't need to change the standard, you just change your local policy
(the way you allocate resources and the allocation can be based upon
classifications given by labels).  

So, while the point might seem obvious, I think it is worth stating.  It
comes from some IETF history where policies were enmeshed with labels and
things didn't work out.

I hope this helps. 

Kimberly
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:05 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP SIP REQ-6 to REQ-10

In a message dated 9/30/2002 2:10:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email-masked] writes: 

       REQ-7: Separation of indication and policy: The indication 
            should not describe a particular detailed treatment, as it 
            is likely that this depends on the nature of the resource 
            and local policy.  Instead, it should invoke a particular 
            named policy. As an example, instead of specifying that a 
            certain SIP request should be granted queueing priority, 
            not cause preemption, but be restricted to three-minute 
            sessions, the requests invokes a certain named policy that 
            may well have those properties. 

The above seems so intuitively obvious to me that I wonder why it is even
necessary to state it. Or else, maybe it has some completely different
meaning or connotation than what I think it means. 

I don't think I have heard any proposal, nor can I think of one, that would
not comply with this, but I'm afraid it means something more to someone. I
believe there was a comment once, which I took as only half serious, to the
effect that one would not code a priority as "Queue me first, preempt lower
priority traffic, don't drop my packets". (Of course, SIP actually allows
coding like this!) 

If two priority values are "low" and "high", would someone claim that this
violates the above requirement? The "indication" certainly describes
something about the treament. 

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

---

From: "Stuart (Stu) Goldman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 07:35:05 -0700

Mike,

I also think there is value in isolating the labels from the policy. If I had an
ordered list of priorities such as 1, 2, 3, ...N. It would be difficult to
introduce a new label and policy in the middle such as 2.5.

Also, the policies associated with a pair of labels may result in different
treatment based on the wishes of the user, but not imply that one label had
"more preference" than the other.