Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-05

> Let me make sure I have this straight.  In the NSIS discussion you  
> insist that we change the name to <Y.2171 Admission Priority> in  
> order to resolve the debate, while the NSIS admission priority  
> approach is in fact as implemented today for ETS and has little to  
> do with Y.2171 other than to populate the initial admission priority  
> values in the registry.  OTOH, the rsvp admission priority approach  
> uses a specific rsvp object, is populated from an rsvp-specific p- 
> type, and AFAIK is not implemented anywhere as yet.  Yet this rsvp- 
> specific admission priority approach is now declared the 'generic'  
> admission priority mechanism?

yes

> Hopefully you'll also respond to my comments 2 & 4:

I'm not speaking for Francois, but I would ask that if you are  
pointingly asking for responses, then please display the same courtesy  
and respond to at the questions sent to you previously on this  
thread.  if you choose not to, fine, but let's not make this  one way  
street.

> 2. Presumably the emergency-rsvp admission priority approach is  
> implemented (or planned to be implemented) in real network  
> applications.  It would be nice to reference such implementations,  
> existing or planned, if possible.

implementations and deployments in the context you speak of are a rat  
hole.  I'm under several non-disclosure agreements on this general  
topic, and I can imagine that Francois is under similar constraints  
with respect to his customers.  You should be aware of this kind of  
bind.  But, if you are not under the same constraints, I'd be happy to  
openly hear of specific vendor/operator deployments you are aware of.   
Otherwise, let's drop this specific sub-thread.

> 4. Section 3.1 (Admission Priority Policy Element) of emergency-rsvp  
> states:
>
>   "Adm. Priority (Admission Priority): 8 bits (unsigned)
>    The admission control priority of the flow, in terms of access to
>    network bandwidth in order to provide higher probability of call
>    completion to selected flows. Higher values represent higher
>    Priority. A given Admission Priority is encoded in this information
>    element using the same value as when encoded in the Admission
>    Priority parameter defined in section 6.2.9 of [NSIS-QSPEC], or in
>    the Admission Priority parameter defined in section 4.10 of [DIME-
>    PARAM]. In other words, a given value inside the Admission Priority
>    information element defined in the present document, inside the
>    [NSIS-QSPEC] Admission Priority parameter or inside the [DIME- 
> PARAM]
>    Admission Priority parameter, refers to the same Admission  
> Priority."
>
> The text is very unclear as to what it means that admission priority  
> values are encoded 'using the same value' in the 3 different  
> drafts?  Perhaps an example would help, but in any case it should be  
> clarified.  Further, the text should be updated to note that the  
> <rsvp admission priority> field is not directly comparable to the <Y. 
> 2171 Admission Priority> field in the qspec draft so as to avoid  
> confusion.

The above cited text clearly needs to be re-written depending on the  
outcome of this thread, so attempts at altering the it before any NEW  
consensus is agreed on premature at this point.

-ken