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

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Tue, 15 June 2010 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
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 6F43D3A6A05 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
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 KSllX6PnNis7 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.eukhosting.net [92.48.97.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740D23A687D for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:53652 helo=[192.168.0.20]) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1OOWBw-00050i-90; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:28:36 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:28:36 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AADAA73D-FA60-40CF-8E62-9C8920572240@g11.org.uk>
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1>
To: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
Cc: 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 13:28:36 -0000

Hi Lionel,

> 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...

I have a preference to leave the description of the defending and preemption priority as is.  Its consistent with the other subsections in that each provides a brief description of the AVP, along with a reference of where more in-depth information may be found.  And unfortunately, most folks are not as diligent and careful as you are to follow all the references thoroughly :-), and thus they'll ask why we have various AVPs that seemingly deal with the same priority (not knowing that priority comes in various flavors).

Having said that, please let me know if you feel my description in 3.1 is not as accurate as it should be with respect to rfc-3181.

I'll respond to your other points in a subsequent email.

-ken