RE: [Ieprep] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet EmergencyPreparedness (ieprep)

["Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly at att.com>]

Janet,

I agree that the items you listed below are best analyzed/discussed in
the IETF, for as long as real-life architecture deployment scenarios are
taken into account.

Martin
 
Janet Gunn wrote on 11/16:
Some of the possibilities in that continuum include (in no particular
order):
- Allowing extra sessions in, and permitting degradation in QoS across
all
sessions.
- Allowing a higher packet drop rate across all the "lower priority"
calls.
- Negotiating a lower bandwidth allocation, possibly accompanied by a
changing to a lower rate bandwidth codec when a higher priority session
needs to "preempt".
- Negotiating (or arbitrarily imposing) a different PHB (e.g. AF or BE
rather than EF) for lower priority sessions when a higher priority
session
needs to "preempt".
- Different Capacity Admission Control mechanisms for different priority
sessions.

The analysis/understanding of these (and other) alternatives is much
better
done in the IETF than in the historically-circuit-swiched SDOs.

Janet
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf