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

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 12:21 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 CDAAB3A6A63; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, 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 tF3joUG0sG3E; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail164.messagelabs.com (mail164.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6AF3A682A; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: jgunn6@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-164.messagelabs.com!1276604489!8117019!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.87]
Received: (qmail 16765 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2010 12:21:29 -0000
Received: from amer-mta101.csc.com (HELO amer-mta101.csc.com) (20.137.2.87) by server-7.tower-164.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Jun 2010 12:21:29 -0000
Received: from amer-gw09.amer.csc.com (amer-gw09.amer.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta101.csc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o5FCLSPb025895; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:21:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1>
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1>
To: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 4D93F050:FDC2B636-85257743:004163F4; 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: <OF4D93F050.FDC2B636-ON85257743.004163F4-85257743.0043E1DC@csc.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:21:24 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 8.5.1FP1 HF293|April 16, 2010) at 06/15/2010 08:22:03 AM, Serialize complete at 06/15/2010 08:22:03 AM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0043E0AD85257743_="
Cc: dime-bounces@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, tom.taylor@rogers.com
Subject: Re: [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 12:21:31 -0000

I do not understand your statement that   "ALRP is just another namespace 
defined in the same Registry." 

As I understand it, the reason for supporting both RPH and ALRP (even 
though they contain the same information) is for ease in mapping to or 
from protocols that use RPH (e.g., SIP) as well as protocols that use ALRP 
(e.g., RSVP) without having to go through a mapping from text to digits, 
or vice versa. 

 Your proposal, if I am reading it correctly, would require mapping from 
the text priority value (e.g., routine, priority, immediate, flash, 
flash-override) to numerical values.
It would also require  mapping from the RPH (text) namespace to the  ALRP 
(numerical) namespace (or vice versa) in order to include both.

  If you are going to go through that mapping , you might as well map the 
entire RPH into ALRP and be done with it.

If you want to avoid the need to map back and forth between text and 
digits (which I thought was the point), you need to support both RPH (all 
text) and ALRP (all digits) independently.

Janet


dime-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 06/15/2010 06:11:24 AM:

> [image removed] 
> 
> [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
> 
> lionel.morand 
> 
> to:
> 
> dime
> 
> 06/15/2010 06:16 AM
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> dime-bounces@ietf.org
> 
> Cc:
> 
> tom.taylor
> 
> In addition to the previous comments, here is my feedback on this draft.
> 
...
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime