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

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.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 081043A68AD for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 bQmjyVud3v6G for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BF23A6893 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A3D1B8B802C; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:13:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FFB8B800B; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:12:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:11:29 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:11:24 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcsMcxxo0Uay5f47SyimWqEOwdCNnA==
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: dime@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 10:11:29.0858 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F72CA20:01CB0C73]
Cc: tom.taylor@rogers.com
Subject: [Dime] Additional 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, 15 Jun 2010 10:16:37 -0000

In addition to the previous comments, here is my feedback on this draft.

***************

Section 3.1.

   The Defending-Priority is set when the  reservation  has  been
admitted.
   The  Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared
   with the Defending Priority  of  a  previously  admitted  flow.   The
   actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function
   of local policy.

Here we are describing how to set and use the value conatined in the
AVPs and not the AVP itself. Would a simple reference to RFC3181 be
enough to know to use this information? This would avoid any possible
misalignment...

********************

Section 3.3/section 3.4

ALRP is just another namespace defined in the same Registry. Moreover,
there are additional namespace defined in RFC 5478. Would it be simpler
to rely on the same AVP to convey the same kind of information.

Here is a proposal:

	The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is of type Grouped. It provides
the Resource-Priority namespace and the Resource-Priority value
contained in a SIP Resource-Priority header as defined in [RFC4412].

	SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
      	                { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
            	          { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }

	The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP is of type Grouped. It
contains a unique string and the associated numerical value
identifying the namespace.

	SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
                               { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-String
}
                               { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-Value }


	The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-String AVP (AVP Code TBD) is
of type UTF8String.

	The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is
of type Unsigned32.

	The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
Unsigned32.

Would it be acceptable?

regards

Lionel Morand