James,
foobar-00 through foobar-49
Henning
On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:42 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
Henning
DISA wants to have 50 new namespaces within their network. It seems the 2 we had in RFC 4412 weren't enough for their plans. Don't ask me why we didn't know about this long ago, but some within that organization had this planned many years ago.
In a nutshell, they want to be able to assign different RPH namespaces to different branches of service (army, navy, air force, marines) as well as have temporary assignments to individual units (say, one task force, which is separate than the branch of service). They came up with 50 as a good number to have at their disposal.
They have also upped the number of priority-values needed, with each namespace having the same number (0 through 9). The even numbers were there because those are the only ones they plan on using for the next several years. The old numbers are for future use. This draft should account for all that is known to be planned.
I've tried to remove any new usage rules from this draft, but leave in a few reminders about section 8 of 4412, so someone just looking at this wouldn't see those rules not mentioned.
I have a -01 available that calls out (more clearly) the equivalency rules within section 8 of 4412. This new version also reduces the reminders of this to within one section of the draft.
Does this help?
James
At 04:57 PM 10/31/2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
> Why priority values that are even only?
Priority values are completely arbitrary. If you wanted to, you could have priority values
YP17 42 -Pi i e
I'm not concerned about the specific labels; it is hard to review a draft when one has no idea *why* things are being done. Why 10 levels as opposed to 5 or 7?
I read nothing that suggests that one namespace (as a whole)can preempt another namespace. In fact that is explicitly forbidden.
The draft talks a lot about local policy.
What is discussed as a possibility (consistent with RFC 4412)is making two or more namespaces "equivalent". For instance, if you make dsn-000001 and dsn-00000A "equivalent" then dsn-000001.0 and dsn-00000A.0 would be completely equal in priority.
I didn't find this in the draft, so maybe it should be called out more visibly.
Similarly dsn-000001.8 and dsn-00000A.8 would be completely equivalent in priority.
In this case dsn-000001.0 could neither preempt, not be preempted by, dsn-00000A.0. But dsn-000001.0 could be preempted by EITHER dsn-000001.8 OR by dsn-00000A.8.
And dsn-000001.8 neither preempt, not be preempted by, dsn-00000A. 8. But dsn-000001.8 could preempt EITHER dsn-000001.0 OR dsn-00000A.0
Again, without any notion of what all this is supposed to accomplish it's hard to do more than a syntax review and spell checking.
Henning
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip