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

[Janet P Gunn <[e-mail]>]

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]] 
                 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 
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
 
 
                 [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>