Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re:

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:20:17 -0400

The term "the public network of a country" makes sense in the straight
telephony world, but I am not sure it makes sense in the IP world.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ieprep] Re:

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 
as "public_network" shouldn't be defined at this time.

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