Subject: Re: [Ieprep] network congestion, VoIP, NCS contracting approach, etc.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:00:21 EST

In a message dated 11/10/2002 8:30:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Prioritisation is a mechanism.  The NCS mission, as you state, is to
> ensure communications availability.  NCS ought not care which mechanism
> is used, provided that communications remain available.
> 

In a message dated 11/10/2002 1:38:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Notice the word "priority" in the segment "priority telecommunications
> requirements".  I don't find a definition of priority in that document.
> Priority also has a meaning associated with IP networks (e.g., terms like a
> priority queue).  Have the two ideas been blended?
> 

I'm sure that the word "priority" (such as in the NCS mission) is being used 
in the more general sense, and certainly shouldn't be interpreted to mean 
that there must be a "priority queue" for packets or any other specific 
mechanism. Yes, I'm afraid the two ideas have been blended, resulting in 
immediate objection (to functional requirements or goals) being made by those 
who seem to jump to the conclusion that someone is proposing multiple 
priority queues for voice packets.

That's why I used the term "preferential treatment" in my drafts, and only 
give "prioritisation" as an example of how "preferential treatment" may be 
provided. Examples of "prioritisation" (in the sense of handling one thing in 
front of something else) would be a device that queues new call attempts and 
processes them in a priority order as resources become available.

Priority for transporting voice packets ahead of data is already defined in 
EF. My examples includes a mechanism of multiple drop precedences for EF, but 
do not propose "priority" as a mechanism in the sense of one voice packet 
having priority being sent ahead of others.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:39:41 -0500

On Monday, Nov 11, 2002, at 14:00 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> That's why I used the term "preferential treatment" in my drafts, and 
> only give "prioritisation" as an example of how "preferential 
> treatment" may be provided. Examples of "prioritisation" (in the sense 
> of handling one thing in front of something else) would be a device 
> that queues new call attempts and processes them in a priority order 
> as resources become available.

A major issue with even that is that it isn't the functional need of 
GETS or
NCS.  The functional need is to get the emergency calls through.  If an 
ISP
can do that with only "best effort" and explicitly no support for 
"preferential
treatment", the ISP has met the need completely.  If one talks about 
"preferential
treatment" then by definition it means the ISP is offering something 
other than
pure "best effort" service, so even that gets down into mechanism 
somewhat
(though it is fuzzy about which mechanism(s) provide the "preferential 
treatment").

So there are still issues with that wording and that conceptual 
approach.

Ran

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

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:37:28 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
    > A major issue with even that is that ["preferential treatment"]
    > isn't the functional need of GETS or NCS.  The functional need is to
    > get the emergency calls through.

Ran has accurately summarized my objection, as well.

"Preferential treatment" or call completion.  ISPs can provide either one,
but not both.

                                -Bill