Subject: Re: [Sip] -RP-05.txt: section 7.1 on priority-value interleaving

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:31:15 EST

In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:26:59 PM W. Europe Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Section 7.1 is merely to give examples to readers that show the order 
> within a namespace must be maintained regardless of how many other 
> namespaces exist (that are supported) by that SIP element.
> 
> The section also provides examples of how the orders can be in multiple 
> combinations of groupings, as long as the overall order within each 
> namespace is not changed.
> 
> 

The point in the first paragraph above is important, and needs to be made so 
by not including it in a section titled "multiple namespaces", since, as you 
said, it is true "regardless of how many other namespaces exist". Somewhere 
else in the document there should be a clear statement that the order of priority 
values within each individual namespace must be maintained. In fact, I 
believe that the actual requirement should be stated as follows:

-----------------------
The order of priority values MUST be maintained. That is, if priority value 
"A" is specified as being higher than priority value "B" in the IANA 
registration, then an entity MUST NOT give traffic marked with value "A" a lower level 
of preferential treatment than traffic marked with priority value "B". An 
entity MUST NOT reorder the priority values.
-----------------------

It needs to be stated this way, since it is permissible for an entity to give 
two levels the same treatment. For example, in the DSN, Flash and Flash 
Override may get the same treatment for packet transport at core routers while 
other entities may treat them different (endpoints or edge routers).

The above requirement is too important to "hide" in a section about multiple 
namespaces.

The second paragraph above, and the text that shows relationships between 
different namespaces remains confusing since there is a clear agreement that 
there is no relationship between namespaces. This text clearly implies that there 
is a relationship. If someything needs to be said to explain this to people, 
then let's work on text to address the problem. I believe that the current text 
will just further confuse others (not me). I'm not confused by it because I 
know the truth. Others won't.

Mike Pierce

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:34:45 -0600

At 06:31 AM 11/18/2004 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>since it is permissible for an entity to give two levels the same 
>treatment. For example, in the DSN, Flash and Flash Override may get the 
>same treatment for packet transport at core routers while other entities 
>may treat them different (endpoints or edge routers).

this is a good point, I will adjust the text to reflect this

>The above requirement is too important to "hide" in a section about 
>multiple namespaces.
>
>different namespaces remains confusing since there is a clear agreement 
>that there is no relationship between namespaces.

yet some remained confused until they saw examples of various combinations 
that didn't violate the rule.

>This text clearly implies that there is a relationship. If someything 
>needs to be said to explain this to people, then let's work on text to 
>address the problem. I believe that the current text will just further 
>confuse others (not me). I'm not confused by it because I know the truth. 
>Others won't.
>
>Mike Pierce
>

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented