[Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Tue, 04 May 2010 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jgunn6@csc.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C3328C3A8; Tue, 4 May 2010 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.836, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VL6jLw1D+GwG; Tue, 4 May 2010 13:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail145.messagelabs.com (mail145.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4241328C539; Tue, 4 May 2010 13:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: jgunn6@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-145.messagelabs.com!1273003588!16067948!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.87]
Received: (qmail 21965 invoked from network); 4 May 2010 20:06:28 -0000
Received: from amer-mta101.csc.com (HELO amer-mta101.csc.com) (20.137.2.87) by server-13.tower-145.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 May 2010 20:06:28 -0000
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta101.csc.com (Switch-3.3.3mp/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o44K6RHJ030400; Tue, 4 May 2010 16:06:28 -0400
To: dime@ietf.org, dime-bounces@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 5EBF267D:2E913548-85257719:006DCB4A; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2FP1 CCH2 April 23, 2009
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Message-ID: <OF5EBF267D.2E913548-ON85257719.006DCB4A-85257719.006E793A@csc.com>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:06:33 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 8.0.1 HF996|December 23, 2008) at 05/04/2010 04:07:11 PM, Serialize complete at 05/04/2010 04:07:11 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 006E78E785257719_="
Subject: [Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 20:56:39 -0000

Mostly Nits


End of sec 1- What is [draft.rsvp-priority-extension]?   Do you mean 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp? (And it is now up to rev 15, rather than 
the 14 cited in your references)

Sec 3.2  I think "the admission priority parameter defined in Section 3.1 
of   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]." should refer to sec 5.1

Sec 3.3, 3.4

It might be a good idea to put something in the text explaining the 
rationale for specifying both the full text "Namespace, Value" pair and 
the numerical encoding defined in sec 5.2 and sec 7 of 
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].  They contain the same information, 
though in quite different formats. It is presumably because SIP uses one 
format and RSVP uses a different format, but it wouldn't hurt to add a 
sentence of explanation.


Lower level question-
If you are using the full text "Namespace, value" pair, I suggest calling 
it "RPH-Namespace" or "SIP-RPH-Namespace" rather than "SIP-Namespace". 
(Same for SIP-Value), to avoid confusion with other SIP Namespaces and 
other SIP Values.


Sec 3.4
The subsections should be renumbered 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.