Subject: [Ieprep] Re:

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:36:24 EDT

In a message dated 5/22/02 10:07:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > From: [email-masked]
> >
> > For IEPREP, the job is to add the definition of the namespace. I believe 
> > that, while the namespace would be added to support the specific 
> > requirements of IEPREP, it is something that exists in a broader context
> > - the public network. Within that network, the new value(s) for IEPREP 
> > are in addition to the case of "normal" calls, even if the normal calls
> > never use the Resource-priority header. It seems necessary to actually
> > define a "Normal" priority value, simply to be able to say that something 
> > defaults to it. 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what exactly you are saying here.  
> 

Sorry, I know it was somewhat contorted. We're trying to define a namespace 
which is used for a particular environment or network - in this case - in the 
public network of a country. The network, and therefore the namespace, needs 
to support what we call IEPREP or ETS, but it must also support normal calls 
and 911 calls. So it seems to make sense to define a set of priority values 
in that namespace which includes all these known things in one set.

> 
> > C Namespace public_network 
> > 
> > The namespace "public_network" is registered here to be used by those
> > public networks which support the emergency services defined in 
> > [IEPS/SOS/911/etc]. The namespace contains the following five priority
> > values in ascending order: 
> 
> ugh.  I really feel uncomfortable with this.  an association of a generic 
> name like "public_network" with a distinct number of priority values
> really doesn't seem to be desireable.  I feel more comfortable starting
> out with "known" namespaces or levels like MLPP and IEPS/GETS.  my 
> udnerstanding is that the ITU will define ETS with 5 levels.  and there
> is e-MLPP with the 15, and GTPS with 3.  but some generic and encompassing
> 

I said that the name "public_network" is open for a better choice. Yes, ITU 
might define ETS with 5 levels (normal plus 4?). My effort is to get "them" 
and "us" to do the same thing. Another clarification that I tried to make: 
e-MLPP for GSM does not have 15 levels - it has 7. And yes, if different 
countries are likely to have different schemes for their brand of ETS (e.g., 
number of levels), then that is a reason to not add this to the current 
Resource-priority draft and let that draft be progressed by SIPPING/SIP 
without it.

> my 2 pence,
> -ken
Thanks for the comments.

Mike

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:54:42 +0100

> which is used for a particular environment or network - in this case - in
>  the public network of a country. The network, and therefore the namespace, 
> needs to support what we call IEPREP or ETS, but it must also support normal 
> calls and 911 calls. So it seems to make sense to define a set of priority 
> values in that namespace which includes all these known things in one set. 

ok, I kinda of suspected that you were revisting the issue of "normal".
I'll restate my objection a while back of requiring/expecting the
specification of the "normal" value in the Resource-Priority header.  
its redundant, and therefore in my opinion a waste of cycles.  its 
perfectly fine to state that a given value of a list of 2 or more is 
treated as default.  but "normal" should never be a requiredor expected
value

also, a small nit, but i don't think there should ever be a namespace
called IEPREP.  

-ken

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