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

[<[e-mail]>]

got it ;)
 
Thank you!
 
Lionel


________________________________

	De : Janet P Gunn [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	Envoyé : mardi 15 juin 2010 15:54
	À : MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS
	Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	Objet : RE: [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
	
	

	Lionel, 
	
	Yes, there is a one-to-one mapping between RPH (text namespace, text priority) and ALRP (numerical namespace, numerical priority) 
	
	But if you want to convert from one to the other (or from either to your proposed approach) you need to go and look up that mapping, which is extra work for the processor. 
	
	My understanding is that  the authors wanted to avoid that extra work- so if you receive  a message with RPH, you just blindly copy the text values into the its AVP, if you receive ALRP, you blindly copy the numerical values into its AVP, no need to go look up the one-to-one mapping. 
	
	Janet
	
	
	
	
	
From: 	<[e-mail]> 
To: 	Janet P Gunn/USA/CSC@CSC 
Cc: 	<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> 
Date: 	06/15/2010 09:11 AM 
Subject: 	RE: [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt

________________________________




	Hi Janet,
	
	Please see below.
	
	Regards,
	
	Lionel
	
	________________________________
	
	                De : Janet P Gunn [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ] 
	                Envoyé : mardi 15 juin 2010 14:21
	                À : MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS
	                Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	                Objet : Re: [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
	                
	                
	
	                I do not understand your statement that   "ALRP is just another namespace defined in the same Registry."   
	                
	[Lionel Morand] My mistake! ;) 
	                
	                As I understand it, the reason for supporting both RPH and ALRP (even though they contain the same information) is for ease in mapping to or from protocols that use RPH (e.g., SIP) as well as protocols that use ALRP (e.g., RSVP) without having to go through a mapping from text to digits, or vice versa. 
	                
	                 Your proposal, if I am reading it correctly, would require mapping from the text priority value (e.g., routine, priority, immediate, flash, flash-override) to numerical values. 
	                It would also require  mapping from the RPH (text) namespace to the  ALRP (numerical) namespace (or vice versa) in order to include both. 
	                
	                  If you are going to go through that mapping , you might as well map the entire RPH into ALRP and be done with it. 
	                
	                If you want to avoid the need to map back and forth between text and digits (which I thought was the point), you need to support both RPH (all text) and ALRP (all digits) independently. 
	                
	[Lionel Morand] I was assuming that this mapping was provided, considering the text in IANA considerations in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15#section-7 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-15#section-7>  and the updated version of http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters <http://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?
	
	Please forgive me if I misunderstood something...
	
	Lionel
	                
	                Janet
	                
	                
	                [e-mail] wrote on 06/15/2010 06:11:24 AM:
	                
	                > [image removed] 
	                > 
	                > [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt 
	                > 
	                > lionel.morand 
	                > 
	                > to: 
	                > 
	                > dime 
	                > 
	                > 06/15/2010 06:16 AM 
	                > 
	                > Sent by: 
	                > 
	                > [e-mail] 
	                > 
	                > Cc: 
	                > 
	                > tom.taylor 
	                > 
	                > In addition to the previous comments, here is my feedback on this draft.
	                > 
	                ...
	                > 
	                > Section 3.3/section 3.4
	                > 
	                > ALRP is just another namespace defined in the same Registry. Moreover,
	                > there are additional namespace defined in RFC 5478. Would it be simpler
	                > to rely on the same AVP to convey the same kind of information.
	                > 
	                > Here is a proposal:
	                > 
	                >    The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is of type Grouped. It provides
	                > the Resource-Priority namespace and the Resource-Priority value
	                > contained in a SIP Resource-Priority header as defined in [RFC4412].
	                > 
	                >    SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
	                >                          { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
	                >                          { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }
	                > 
	                >    The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP is of type Grouped. It
	                > contains a unique string and the associated numerical value
	                > identifying the namespace.
	                > 
	                >    SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
	                >                                { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-String
	                > }
	                >                                { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-Value }
	                > 
	                > 
	                >    The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-String AVP (AVP Code TBD) is
	                > of type UTF8String.
	                > 
	                >    The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is
	                > of type Unsigned32.
	                > 
	                >    The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
	                > Unsigned32.
	                > 
	                > Would it be acceptable?
	                > 
	                > regards
	                > 
	                > Lionel Morand
	                > _______________________________________________
	                > DiME mailing list
	                > [e-mail]
	                > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime> >