IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels

"Lee, Jay" <Jay.Lee@VerizonWireless.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Jay.Lee@VerizonWireless.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD8E1A8A57 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dw_9MD1SJdsa for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vanguard.verizonwireless.com (vanguard.verizonwireless.com [162.115.35.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FFF61A8A56 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=verizonwireless.com; i=@verizonwireless.com; q=dns/txt; s=prodmail; t=1443644856; x=1475180856; h=from:to:subject:date:mime-version; bh=8ehzCDy2IqJ3/KWmZAtblZMHFgWnXeloYpWJQIsKW4k=; b=D0akAG/ZAogMg5LDX+OJ5y12xJyawg+3irsTKDWfw81MIyNsvDGbHIPQ tbKbdc510SEjlGZRkz3HSVSFrvLp8Ps30B8HuQ/pwrF0enGnxW3wfkIoO TIYXzKr6NT8GvdrCRMHiFztSaanu+gvMMtcvXHQ2ZHVOgcGquDg3Wv7Hy A=;
X-Host: terra.sdc.vzwcorp.com
Received: from casac1exh001.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com ([10.11.218.43]) by vanguard.verizonwireless.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2015 13:27:35 -0700
Received: from CASAC1EXP009.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com ([fe80::558c:d7cc:1a42:f4d6]) by CASAC1EXH001.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:27:35 -0700
From: "Lee, Jay" <Jay.Lee@VerizonWireless.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
Thread-Index: AdD7vGQQB0J1F9yaSjuAhrCWPOpGxQ==
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:27:35 +0000
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.11.60.250]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C026C31E3CD6CA43953D6D95AB48048001052ACASAC1EXP009uswin_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20150930202736.3FFF61A8A56@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/MjLVXrz5SelWpjv-79BRgWWVP6c>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 30 Sep 2015 20:27:38 -0000

Hi Steve and all,

For the first proposal, as I indicated, I support increasing the number of priority levels up to 16.

I am also fine with the second proposal. My question is: do we need to mandate this feature, as individual operators have different situations? Perhaps some flexibility should be allowed? Instead of mandating it, we can include the statement that when there is no DRMP AVP, this correspond to 'normal traffic' without a particular high or low priority. Then each operator can map this default to a value (e.g., 8 or something else) that they feel appropriate.

Thanks,

Jay

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status