Re: Call for consensu on admission priority changes in QSPEC

I support option (3).

Percy S. Tarapore

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:42 AM
To: nsis
Subject: [NSIS] Call for consensu on admission priority changes in QSPEC

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