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

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Wed, 05 May 2010 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
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 24F1D3A6A79 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 06:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 NvclMsH++0oz for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhost.com (portland.eukhost.com [92.48.97.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD863A68C0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2010 06:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:51327 helo=[192.168.0.20]) by portland.eukhost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1O9elP-0004fY-Qg; Wed, 05 May 2010 13:35:48 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-72-554089103"
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <OF5EBF267D.2E913548-ON85257719.006DCB4A-85257719.006E793A@csc.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 09:35:48 -0400
Message-Id: <9EC8C347-4718-4910-B2E0-645E11B8B6E9@g11.org.uk>
References: <OF5EBF267D.2E913548-ON85257719.006DCB4A-85257719.006E793A@csc.com>
To: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] 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: Wed, 05 May 2010 13:36:06 -0000

Hi Janet,

Thanks for the comments.

> Mostly Nits 
> 
> End of sec 1- What is [draft.rsvp-priority-extension]?   Do you mean draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp? (And it is now up to rev 15, rather than the 14 cited in your references) 

yes, good catch.  I'll correct this

> Sec 3.2  I think "the admission priority parameter defined in Section 3.1 of   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]." should refer to sec 5.1 

yes, another good catch.

> Sec 3.3, 3.4 
> 
> It might be a good idea to put something in the text explaining the rationale for specifying both the full text "Namespace, Value" pair and the numerical encoding defined in sec 5.2 and sec 7 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].  They contain the same information, though in quite different formats. It is presumably because SIP uses one format and RSVP uses a different format, but it wouldn't hurt to add a sentence of explanation. 

Your understanding is correct, and I'll add some text to make this clear to the reader.

> Lower level question- 
> If you are using the full text "Namespace, value" pair, I suggest calling it "RPH-Namespace" or "SIP-RPH-Namespace" rather than "SIP-Namespace". (Same for SIP-Value), to avoid confusion with other SIP Namespaces and other SIP Values. 

ok, I'll alter the text to be more descriptive to relate to the optional RPH field.

> Sec 3.4 
> The subsections should be renumbered 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. 

right.

thanks again,

-ken