Admission field in QSPECRE: Review of draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt

Hi all,
 
Just some background history.  There are 3 documents defining similar
fields
 
 tsvwg-emergency-rsvp 
 nsis-qspec 
 dime-qos-parameters
 
We discussed this on this list and at previous IETF meetings. My view of
consensus was that there should be some harmony and a common registry
between these documents.  
 
I think wee need to be able to support a few different scenarios and
usages for the admission priority.  Is there a way that we could have a
common structure to hold the values, and the ability to set the values
accordingly?
 
John
 
________________________________

From: ext ken carlberg [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 25 February, 2008 11:50
To: [email protected]
Cc: nsis ((E-mail)); [email protected]; Francois Le Faucheur IMAP;
Loughney John (Nokia-OCTO/PaloAlto)
Subject: Re: [NSIS] Review of draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt



	Jerry,

	> Right, there is no issue in having an IETF spec tied to an ITU
spec.  If ITU modifies their 
	> spec, IANA will make the corresponding changes in the IETF
IANA assignments.  E.g., if 
	> ITU later standardizes more priority levels, say in
"Y.2171.bis', IANA will change the 
	> admission priority registry accordingly.  I checked that out
with IANA a while ago, IANA can 
	> tie into ITU specs in this way.
	
	
	if the Admission field in the QSPEC is to be so entwined with
Y.1541 values (and possibly Y.2171.bis), then perhaps the Admission
field in QSPEC should be renamed as ITU-Admission?  Or possibly one
could define a new field called ITU-admission that supports the Y.1541
pre-defined values.  It would also seem helpful to add another related
field that indicates which Y.xxxx standard is being used since there may
be some domains that only support Y.1541, others supporting Y.2171.bis,
and whatever future iteration is defined by the ITU.  I assume  folks
are not relying on a flag day change in support of new updates generated
by the ITU?
	
	
	and as far as the current values set by Y.1541, I wish there was
support for Scavenger Service, which is considered less than Best Effort
(already defined as "0" in Y.1541).  Since I'm not a member of the ITU,
I can't advocate this position nor accomplish it if the Admission field
of all three drafts <emergency-rsvp>, <dime-qos-parameters> and
<nsis-qspec> are subject to values defined by the ITU.
	
	
	and please note, I'm not saying that a field cannot reflect
efforts put forth by the ITU, but rather if the need must exist, then
I'd prefer that the QSPEC authors rename or create a new field for
Y.1541 or Y.2171.bis
	
	
	regards,
	
	
	-ken

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis