Subject: [Ieprep] Re: [Tsvwg] <draft-lefaucheur-emergency-rsvp> : Preemption scope

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:28:51 -0600

Janet,

Janet P Gunn wrote:                        (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:33:35)
> 
> It also says explicitly "Our reasoning and conclusions set forth above do
> not necessarily extend to other priority schemes "
> 
> I agree it would be a whole lot cleaner if there was somewhere that
> explicitly SAID "preemption is not permitted".
> 
> But it is not that hard to "read between the lines" the IMPLICIT assumption
> that "preemption is not permitted".
> 
> From a practical matter, the fact that all the carriers BELIEVE "preemption
> is not permitted" is sufficient ( at least until the FCC comes out with an
> explicit statement) to ensure that preemption is not going to be offered by
> the US carriers.
> 

Thank you for taking the time to humor me with the details!  I think
that I have some understanding of the predicament now from your
excellent explanation.

Nevertheless, does not calling preemption "unlawful" beg the question?

Also, it appears that the preemption that was excluded from PAS was
preempting "established" calls.  Do you recall there anywhere being a
definition of when a call is "established"?

Barring such a definition, one, I suppose, could assume that once
participants in the call have exchanged greetings that it is
established.  Because RSVP call admission is performed long before this
point, there is a period of time after RSVP admits the call until the
RTP channel is established and operational that RSVP could "preempt"
the admission without preempting an "established" call.

In fact, during a disaster which has stimulated a mass calling event,
this is a critical period.

> It also says explicitly "Our reasoning and conclusions set forth above do
> not necessarily extend to other priority schemes "

Would not that also exclude, preemption or not, any scheme not precisely
PAS?

ETS for RSVP is certainly not precisely PAS.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

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

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:15:43 -0400

In line

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]> wrote on 06/07/2006 02:28:51

> definition of when a call is "established"?

I don't know about a "definition", but, from a practical perspective, in an
SS7 network, you could consider it when the destination returns an ISUP
Answer Message (ANM).  In an IP network, you could consider it to be when
"bearer packets" (as opposed to "signaling packets") start being
transmitted.
> ETS for RSVP is certainly not precisely PAS.

Absolutely.

There is another "waiver" for the (landline) GETS features, but since i
wasn't actively involved when it came out, it isn't sitting on my hard
drive.  There would need to be another "waiver" for any substantially new
"special treatment".  But the point is that everyone involved anticipates
getting such a new waiver, as long as the new "special treatment" does not
include  "preemption".