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

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 13:11 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 8DE773A681E; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6]
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 n1bJzOLQaXsB; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2483A6828; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6328DFC4030; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:07:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583CCFC4033; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:07:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:07:18 +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 15:07:11 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA94C@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <OF4D93F050.FDC2B636-ON85257743.004163F4-85257743.0043E1DC@csc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Additional comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcsMhW7ZkovEcKrrTmOSVHVHcCji/gAAyW3A
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CA866@ftrdmel1> <OF4D93F050.FDC2B636-ON85257743.004163F4-85257743.0043E1DC@csc.com>
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: jgunn6@csc.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 13:07:18.0424 (UTC) FILETIME=[AEE23980:01CB0C8B]
Cc: dime-bounces@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, tom.taylor@rogers.com
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 13:11:08 -0000

Hi Janet,

Please see below.

Regards,

Lionel

________________________________

	De : Janet P Gunn [mailto:jgunn6@csc.com] 
	Envoyé : mardi 15 juin 2010 14:21
	À : MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS
	Cc : dime@ietf.org; dime-bounces@ietf.org; tom.taylor@rogers.com
	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 and the updated version of 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
	
	
	dime-bounces@ietf.org 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: 
	> 
	> dime-bounces@ietf.org 
	> 
	> 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
	> DiME@ietf.org
	> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>