Re: Admission field in QSPEC -- was RE: Review of draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt
ken carlberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nsis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Feb 27, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Gerald Ash wrote: > Obviously one option is for emergency-rsvp to adopt the approach > being taken all along in QSPEC. We are not being told why this is > not considered. oh come on. how many times must be said and in how many ways? on February 25, 2008 2:50:24 PM EST I stated the following "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." Put another way, Francois and I have said that we don't want an Admission Priority field to be constrained (limited, burdened,....pick the word of your choice) with pre-existing values, and in particular those that come from a different standards body. And we are not condemning all other similar practices. We are not even saying that those of Y.2171 cannot be used. as for as the agreement that was passed around in nov/dec, you are not a newbie to think that agreements are etched in stone. they exist to be commented on, hence our letting others on the diameter/tsvwg/nsis list know the results of private discussions. > IMO we should retain the standardized admission priority levels as > included in QSPEC for a long time. If emergency-rsvp cannot adopt > the same approach, then for now retain 2 approaches. and I brought this up a while back as well. we have no intention of steam rolling the agreement. if part of the agreement breaks, it breaks and we'll go our separate ways. and I apologize if this note is sounding a bit rude, but part of this is getting a bit much. -ken _______________________________________________ nsis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis