Re: [Iptel] Review of TGREP -01

["Dhaval N. Shah" <dhaval@cisco.com>]

> > *   Section 3.3.5:
> There is ambiguity in the sentence:
> >
> >           
> Routes MUST NOT be disseminated with the CallSuccess
> >           
> attribute.  Its potential to change dynamically does not
> >           
> make it suitable to disseminate in most cases.
> >
> >      What is the final consensus: routes
> MUST not be dissemniated with this
> >      attribute?  or am I allowed an
> escape clause since the sentence also
> >      says "...in most
> cases."
> >
> >      I would suggest that due to the
> dynamic nature of this attribute,
> > it NOT
> >      be included.  To a certain
> extent, CallSuccess and
> > AvailableCircuitCapacity
> >      work against each other: the better
> the call success rate at a gateway,
> >      the less the available circuit
> capacity may be in the near future
> > at that
> >      gateway.  Since we are not
> dissemniating AvailableCircuitCapacity,
> > let's
> >      do the same for CallSuccess.
> >
>
> Agree that the wording for the two attributes you mention above needs to
> be
> changed to eliminate any ambiguity.
> However, before we change to this, I would like solicit some feedback if
> there are
> any scenarios which can benefit from propogating Available Circuits and
> Call
> Success. This is akin to the earlier point you mentioned about wanting
> to
> advertise Trunk groups. For instance, there may be value a provider sees
> in
> advertising Available Circuits within the ITAD when call routing may be
> handled at
> more than LS.

The reason some of us thought it was'nt a good idea to disseminate these
attributes in ITRIP
is that the number of ITRIP "hops" could be greater than one,
and then the same issue
of convergence persists, that made us conclude not to include
"dynamic" attributes in ETRIP in
the first place.

> Would like to get a consensus on
> whether we go with SHOULD or MUST.

Thx,
Dhaval