Re: correction to DHS ieprep-related comments to the FCC
Janet P Gunn <[email protected]> Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:37:15 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ieprep |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFB6A079C6.78AFB401-ON85256EB0.006624EF-85256EB0.00664992@csc.com> |
Oh yes, I quite agree it is still an issue- especially for DSCP.
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"James M. Polk"
<jmpolk To: [email protected]
@cisco.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [Ieprep] correction to DHS ieprep-related comments to
ieprep-bounces the FCC
06/11/2004 12:18
PM
At 10:05 AM 6/11/2004 -0400, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>For what it is worth, the minimal request "(or, if they cannot prioritize,
>not give
>worse service and not destroy the marking)" was based on historical
>experiences with the circuit switched networks.
but this is still an issue for this WG because if Diffserv is used as the
priority mechanism, it's stated capability is its ability to be rewritten
into another DSCP value at any domain edge router (chosen exclusively by
that domain provider) - which could be interpreted as destroying the
calling party's signaled priority value...
>Janet
cheers,
James
*******************
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep