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

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 20:59 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 001E93A694E for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 bOKRmgyGEXN2 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D26A3A6934 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E8CBA760007; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:59:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6185768001; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:58:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:56:23 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:56:21 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CAACC@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <75D214AC-F5F2-41EC-862D-60F18D5F9028@g11.org.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcsMku8F1xnezZ2XRrWjU0VWonIGjgAOg6tg
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1> <OF4D93F050.FDC2B636-ON85257743.004163F4-85257743.0043E1DC@csc.com> <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA94C@ftrdmel1> <75D214AC-F5F2-41EC-862D-60F18D5F9028@g11.org.uk>
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: carlberg@g11.org.uk
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 20:56:23.0710 (UTC) FILETIME=[36C80BE0:01CB0CCD]
Cc: jmpolk@cisco.com, dime@ietf.org
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 20:59:05 -0000

Thank you for the clarification.
I may have additional minor comments but I will post them in a different mail.

Cheers,

Lionel

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg@g11.org.uk] 
> Envoyé : mardi 15 juin 2010 15:59
> À : MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS
> Cc : Janet Gunn; dime@ietf.org; Tom Taylor; James Polk; 
> Francois Le Faucheur
> Objet : Re: [Dime] Additional comments on 
> draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
> 
> Lionel,
> 
> > [Lionel Morand] I was assuming that this mapping was 
> provided, considering the text in IANA considerations 
> inhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-1
> 5#section-7 and the updated version 
> ofhttp://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters. 
> > If I'm wrong, please ignore my comment.
> > If I'm correct, there is a one-to-one mapping between any 
> namespace in string format and associated numerical value. It 
> is therefore possible to rely on one single AVP to convey 
> name space and priority value, for SIP of RSVP or whatever... Right?
> 
> the mapping described in the IANA considerations of the 
> tsvwg-emergency-rsvp draft was designed to help ensure 
> interoperability concerning a priority value that could be 
> found from different protocols -- namely SIP (with its 
> alphanumeric representation, and RSVP (with its numeric only 
> representation).  We specifically wanted to avoid two 
> different registries because even with the most careful of 
> individuals, there would eventually be a mistake in trying to 
> make sure that different representations of the same priority 
> value would be misaligned.
> 
> At first glance, your proposal of a single group AVP versus 
> two distinct AVPs has an appeal because of its potential 
> simplicity through reduction/subtraction.  However, taking 
> this one step further in terms of the scenarios that these 
> AVPs could be applied would seem to add more complexity than 
> originally intended.  For example, if a policy decision point 
> received an RSVP message with an ALRP policy element (but 
> whose packet payload did *not* contain a SIP message with an 
> RPH header), then it would have the information for the 
> SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-Value but nothing for the 
> SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-String.  Do we then require a 
> null entry for the latter?
> 
> In addition, your suggested format in the previous email is 
> incomplete because we would still need a group entry defining 
> a string and numeric entry for the Value portion of the RPH tuple.
> 
> As such, I have a preference to keep the defined AVPs as is.  
> If there is still some concern or confusion, we can discuss 
> this offline or in person at the July IETF meeting.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -ken
> 
> ps, James and Francois, I cc'ed you just to make sure you 
> were in the loop.
> 
> pps, Lionel, thanks a lot for the additional review and 
> thoughts on the topic!
> 
>