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

Ken,
 
You state that Francois has "one way" that supposedly defines a "common
structure to hold the values and the ability to set the values
accordingly" as John desires. I am somewhat at a loss here - what
exactly has Francois described that takes an incoming CAC priority value
as desired by a customer at the initial domain which then passes it on
to the other domains in the path. After all, Y.2171 is simply a vehicle
for providing a CAC priority value. It does not mandate how that value
can be acted upon in each domain.
 
Thanks
 
Percy

________________________________

From: ken carlberg [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; TARAPORE, PERCY S, ATTLABS;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Admission field in QSPECRE: [NSIS] Review of
draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt


John,



	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?


we have one way, as described by Francois.  

however, if there is a segment that is absolutely adamant in having a
field reflect the defined values of Y.1541 or Y.2171bis in the QSPEC,
then I think a new field should be defined in that document to contain
those values.  The authors of the other documents can decide if they too
wish to add an ITU dependent field.

the other option is to disregard any relation between the Admission
Priority field of the QSPEC and tsvwg-emergency-rsvp, which would be a
shame.


-ken

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