Re: Call for consensu on admission priority changes in QSPEC

Ken:

Sorry for the delay as I had been in DoD Architecture Conference for the last 3 days.

You and other members can take the lead in finalizing the QSPEC draft.

Best regards,
Radhika

----- Original Message -----
From: ken carlberg 
Date: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:51
Subject: Re: [NSIS] Call for consensu on admission priority changes in QSPEC
To: "Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" 
Cc: Martin Stiemerling , nsis 

> Radhika,
> 
> I'll state up front that I don't wish to get into a protracted 
> argument on this subject, but I'll try and put some perspective 
> into 
> the various options. A review of the NSIS archives from the past 
> 3 
> weeks will show that the topic of the Admission Priority field has 
> 
> been discussed to near ad nauseam, so I don't wish to repeat or 
> recap 
> those discussions.
> 
> The one observation I'll bring up is that there was an argument 
> against the Nov agreement because it did away with: (a) an end-to-
> end 
> value, and (b) a predefined set of values defined by an ITU 
> document. 
> The former is a technical position. I don't know how to describe 
> the 
> latter, though I feel uncomfortable saying that it is "political". 
> 
> Now from the recent archives, one will see that I personally don't 
> 
> agree with positions (a) and (b). However, if people are still 
> willing to argue for these positions, then I think some weight and 
> 
> respect needs to be offered in return.
> 
> Obviously, option 1 below is a non-starter if we decide to achieve 
> a 
> measure of interoperability between the three drafts (from three 
> groups). Option 2 below is one I feel most comfortable with since 
> it 
> exactly mirrors a draft that I have co-authored.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> However, I'll prefer option 3 because satisfies a path to 
> interoperability as well as retaining characteristics in the QSPEC 
> 
> that some are continuing to argue for, and that reflects 
> previously 
> agreed upon positions within NSIS. In other words, it represents 
> a 
> measure of give-and-take that does not prevent opposing points of 
> view 
> and does allow the old mantra of "let the market decide" to be 
> experienced.
> 
> regards,
> 
> -ken
> 
>