Re: Call for consensu on admission priority changes in QSPEC

Hi,
My vote would go for 2 (or 4 as proposed by Roy below).
I can live with 3.
Francois


On 13 Mar 2008, at 12:57, Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC wrote:

> Hi, Martin:
>
> I hum for choice 2.
>
> I do NOT hum for choice 1 or 3 for the following reasons because of  
> the serious technical problems:
>
> a. QSPEC is "NOT" ITU-T QOS-specific draft.
>
> b. Any reference to ITU-T QOS-specific definitions and/or any  
> "values" as Y.xxxx-series do, is out-of-scope in the "generic"  
> QSPEC draft. If someone wants ito nclude anything realted to ITU-T  
> QOS-specific things, it MAY only be done in the sections specific  
> to ITU-T Y.xxxx QOS "values." In fact, no "values" will be defined  
> directly or indirectly (e.g. providing references to Y.xxxx) in  
> this draft.
>
> c. It will be more appropriate, to make a separate draft (stand- 
> alone) of QSPEC that is specific to ITU-T QOS models, values, and  
> other things. So, it is better to DELETE all references specific to  
> ITU-T QOS fro mthe "generic: QSPEC draft. In this case, no "apples"  
> will be mixed with any "oranges." This would be taken as the 4th  
> "options" - as the best one.
>
> Best regards,
> Radhika
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Stiemerling
> Date: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:42
> Subject: [NSIS] Call for consensu on admission priority changes in  
> QSPEC
> To: nsis
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There have been discussions with respect to QoS NSLP QSPEC
>> Template (draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-19.txt) on the nsis mailing list,
>> offline between involved parties, and also during the NSIS session
>> here at the IETF#71 in the NSIS session (see minutes).
>>
>> The QSPEC document shares the IANA registries for RPH priority and
>> the admission priority with these drafts out of the DIME and TSVWG:
>> - draft-ietf-dime-qos- parameters
>> - draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp
>>
>> While the IANA registry for the RPH priority has not been
>> disputed, the admission priority has been.
>>
>> Therefore we run a call for consensus on these three choices for
>> the admission priority in the QSPEC. Note well, that the decision
>> of this can have an impact to the still running IETF last call for
>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please hum on the NSIS list for one of the three options listed
>> below until Monday, March 17th, 12pm UCT. This is to confirm the
>> humming of the NSIS WG during the NSIS session at the IETF meeting.
>>
>> 1) Keep Y.2171 admission prioty in draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-19.txt as  
>> is:
>>
>> 2) Change in draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-19.txt to admission priority as
>> in draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-05.txt and remove Y.2171
>> admission prioty;
>>
>> 3) Keep Y.2171 admission priority and add admission priority as in
>> tsvwg-rsvp-emergency to draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-19.txt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For choice 3) these changes are currenlty proposed:
>>
>> 1) the emergency-RSVP draft should pretty much stay the same.
>> There is no "L" bit addition, and its "Admission Priority" field
>> has local significance within a domain, and no pre-existing values
>> are defined for it, nor is there any associated IANA registry
>> assigned to it.
>>
>> 2) The QSPEC draft will have a similar "Admission Priority" field
>> with the same characteristics as that defined above in (1).
>>
>> 3) The QSPEC draft will add a new field, titled "Y.2171 Admission
>> Priority", that will be associated with the current 3 values
>> defined in the Y.2171. This field is considered globally
>> significant on an end- to-end basis. Note that the emergency-RSVP
>> document will NOT have this additional field.
>>
>> 4) Given the presence of two admin priority fields for the QSPEC,
>> additional rules are added to clarify their application and usage
>> for NSIS domains.
>>
>> 4.1) if the source domain does NOT support Y.2171, then it sets a
>> locally significant value in the "Admission Priority" field, and
>> places all "1"s in the "Y.2171 Admission Priority" to indicate
>> that this field is to be ignored. Downstream domains MUST NOT
>> alter the value of the "Y.2171 Admission Priority" field.
>>
>> 4.2) if the source domain DOES support Y.2171, then a value (eg,
>> 0, 1, or 2) is placed in the "Y.2171 Admission Priority" field AND
>> the "Admission Priority" field. Downstream NSIS domains MUST NOT
>> change the value in the "Y.2171 Admission Priority" field so that
>> end-to-end consistency is maintained. Downstream routers act upon
>> the value placed in the "Admission Priority" field.
>>
>> 4.2.1) Furthermore, if a downstream NSIS domain does not support
>> Y.
>> 2171, it MAY place a locally significant different value in the
>> "Admission Priority" field, which is used by downstream routers
>> within its domain. Subsequent downstream domains that do support
>> Y.2171 make sure that the "Admission Priority" field contains the
>> same value as the "Y.2171 Admission Priority" field.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> [email protected] <== NEW ADDRESS
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
>> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
>> Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>> _______________________________________________
>> nsis mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>>
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis