Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

["Lee, Jay" <[e-mail]>]

In the case of mapping, one-to many is common, so I have no issues with having the range of 16. The range of 15 is also OK, but with default value of 10, we will have one less lower priority levels.

>From practical point of view, this discussion may not be all that relevant. 15 or 16 is a very large number, which were intended to be future proof. In the foreseeable future, we will not be using all 15 or 16 levels. If exact one-to-one mapping is preferred, it can be achieved without any issues, as only DRMP 3-8 levels would be used in practice. I prefer 16, but 15 is OK, as it will not make any difference to us. Not sure if this point is even worth debating or should be a pending point.

Jay

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:15 AM
To: [e-mail]; Shaikh, Viqar A
Subject: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Hi

>From the email threads about draft-ietf-dime-drmp,  I think we now concluded  on the pending points with still a small  discussion about a range of 15 or 16 values on  which we should conclude.


-          On my side I was OK with the initial  proposal of 16 values. For a mapping between a list A with a range of 15 values and  the DRMP range of 16 values , a simple one is to do 1 to 1 mapping except for the value 15th  and 16 th (lowest priorities) of the DRMP range  which would be mapped to the value  15 of the listA range. That being said, I have no issue to use a  DRMP range of 15 value if some of us prefer.

Regarding the draft  I think  the unique Editor's note in version 1 can be removed and after integration of the conclusions in  new draft, I would be in favour to go towards the last call step.


-          I hereafter give some information to Dime-list about the process on 3GGP side.
Diameter  message Priority is an important requirement for 3GPP which agreed on a Release 13 Work Item supported by many companies. 3GPP also decided  to use the draft-ietf-dime-drmp to fulfill this requirement and already agreed Change Requests to some specifications,  with an editor's note  assuming that  draft-ietf-dime-drmp is stable enough to do so. Further Change Request for other specifications will be submitted in the upcoming 3GPP meeting in November which is the last meeting for the 3GPP Release 13.

Our IETF dime work and conclusions drives me to consider that the draft has become stable -so with my proposal that the updated version be submitted to the last call.  I am not so much familiar with IETF process, I hope my proposal  follows the IETF procedures.

Best regards

JJacques



De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Lee, Jay
Envoyé : vendredi 30 octobre 2015 11:10
À : Shaikh, Viqar A; Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc : Singh, Ray P; Lukacs, Donald R; Pollini, Gregory P
Objet : Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Please see my comments inline.

Jay

From: Shaikh, Viqar A [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:59 PM
To: Steve Donovan; Lee, Jay; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Singh, Ray P; Pollini, Gregory P; Lukacs, Donald R
Subject: RE: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)


Hello all,



My 2 cents:



Greater than 5 values for DRMP AVP is justified and it appears there is agreement for 16.  However, note that the 3GPP priority, e.g., Priority-Level AVP (ARP AVP) in TS 29.212 takes 15 values, value 1 the highest, 15 the lowest, and value 0 not defined. Having 15 rather than 16 for DRMP AVP would be useful from an interworking point of view on Diameter interfaces connecting to the EPS.



[JL] I can see that, if the same number (i.e., 15) is used on both sides, there may be one-to-one mapping. This interworking/mapping should be done as part of 3GPP DRMP WI, starting from next 3GPP CT4 meeting. But the mapping can be both one-to-one and one-to-many (multiple). Even if the same number is used, I don't know at the moment that we can exclude the possibility of one-to-many mapping. So I am not sure that we need to have the same number on both sides.



Regarding the default value - it is based on operator policy and can be overwritten by an operator.  Therefore, we support use of "may" and not "should".



[JL] Using 'May' is the consensus do far.



We feel that 15 or 16 values should suffice and there is no need to define an extension bit.  However, I am ok if there is consensus to do so.



[JL] The consensus so far is that it is better not to have the extension bit.



We feel there is no need to specify a default as it is per local policy and can be overwritten.  But, if there is consensus to do so, we suggest value 10 or 11 with a note that it can be overwritten based on operator policy.



[JL] Initial assumption was that there is no need to specify or even assign a default value, I believe. But then, there was a proposal to specify the default value, making it mandatory. And then, there was also a proposal that, even if the default value is not specified, we need to assign the default value that can be overwritten in order to have common understanding for some reasons.



My personal thought on this matter is that there is no need to specify or assign the number, as you also mentioned, and this 'do nothing' may even be a majority view, since it was the initial assumption. But I am not certain, because not everyone voiced opinion. In this situation, a compromise had to be made. The compromise is that we will assign the value '10' to the default case with the statement that the default value can be overwritten per local policy, and 'May' must be used instead of 'Should' in the current text. I think this compromise is consistent with your view.



Thoughts?



Thanks,

Viqar



________________________________
From: DiME [[e-mail]] on behalf of Steve Donovan [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:06 PM
To: Lee, Jay; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Ten is acceptable to me.

Steve

On October 28, 2015 1:36:00 PM "Lee, Jay" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I also think that we agree on all different points for the finalization, except one point: the value for the default case. Use of the default case as discussed here is rather in the future than in the present for us, so I do not have strong opinion, especially when the default value can be overwritten.

Looking at this objectively and also for the sake of progress, however, it would be prudent to have more than one lower priority cases. In the near future, we may identify additional use cases for lower priority case. Even with one use case identified, this does not necessarily mean one priority level per use case. One use case may require multiple lower priority levels, depending on applications.

Any value from 9 to 12 seems reasonable to me. But, without all use cases identified at the present time, I propose 10 (JJacques' proposal) or 11.

Thanks,

Jay

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:11 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Hi

Please see my comments also in line. I think we are close to finalise our choice on the different points  of this thread

Best regards

JJacques

De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Lee, Jay
Envoyé : vendredi 23 octobre 2015 18:57
À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Please see my comments inline.

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 8:02 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Please see my comments inline.

Steve
On 10/23/15 4:00 AM, DOLLY, MARTIN C wrote:
See inline

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lee, Jay
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 1:59 AM
To: TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Some further comments from my side:

*/ If we need to assign (but not specify) a value to the default case, we need to make it clear that this value can be overwritten by operators, and the value is for some use cases like e.g., equipment having the same value when leaving the factory, so that there would be no misunderstanding.
mcd- ok
SRD> I think the current proposed text makes this clear.
[JL] Agree that the current text is OK especially when we use 'May' in place of 'Should'
[JJ] OK
.

*/ Since we agree that the default value is per local policy, 'May' is preferred to 'Should' in order not to cause confusion.
mcd-ok
SRD> I'm okay with making this a MAY.
[JL]  Agreed
[JJ] Also in favor of a MAY

*/ For assignment of the default value, I am quite open. But any value between 9 - 12 seems reasonable to me.
mcd- value should allow for assigning lower values, though a carrier can assign what they want in their network, there needs to be a common meaning at the interconnection point
SRD> I'm open to any value we decide on.  If there are real use cases that require pushing the default value more to the middle then we should do so.  At this point I've heard one use case for the default being something other then the lowest value, thus the proposal to use priority_14 as the default.
[JJ] Regarding use cases, there may be

-          The case where for "normal" users, an application use the default value for most of its requests except some which have a lower priority

-          the case where besides "normal" user (and high priority users), some users have lower priorities, e.g. Some Machine type Communications (MTC) devices.
So potentially more than one low priority level would be needed.
We also have chosen a rather large range of values (16) , allowing flexibility for an operator when they define the number of priorities they want , leaving possibility to future additions. If PRIORITY _14 is the default, it leaves only one lower priority and an operator  cannot add a second one  except by choosing  a default value other than the 14  value.
Then as, in practice, we may expect a range of low priority smaller than  the range of high priority values, this is why the default value was proposed to be in the range 9-12  . Then I proposed 10 so to do a proposal but I am open on another value.
                                                                                                                                                     &! nbsp;&nbs p;
*/  Current proposal of 16 values may be enough now, but I am fine with having an extensibility bit to be future proof.
mcd-ok
SRD> I don't see a compelling argument to move beyond 16.
In addition, it isn't clear to me that there is value in defining an extensibility mechanism beyond what is already supported by Diameter.  Doing so would add significant complexity to the DRMP mechanism for something that, in my view, has a low probability of being used.

I propose that we not allow extending the DRMP AVP.  Rather we require that any extension require a new AVP.  We can then leave it to the document that proposes the extension to deal with determining whether send the DRMP AVP or the newly defined DRMPv2 AVP.
[JL] When we proposed that the range be extended to 16, we thought that '16' was large enough and future proof.
I am okay with having an extensibility bit, if other companies want it. That said, I agree that it has a low probability of being used and added complexity.
[JJ] JJ I also agree that with 16 values , the offered range is large enough in practice. This point is only to check if it would be easy to do an extension, if we have this requirement in the future.  I agree with Steve that for an extensibility, it will require a new AVP in a new document rather than to define a set of reserved values in the DRMP AVP.  A point is that it will require an additional parsing effort for a node to look for this second AVP even if it is not present most of the time.

*/ I am not sure of alternative encoding method (say, +9 to -9 per JJacques' proposal) compared to the current enumerated type of DRMP. It offers a logical way of assigning a value 0 to the default case. But it offers less flexibility to operators, since the default value may not be easily moved to have more higher/lower priority values. Also, we are used to the enumerated type of DRMP and just want to have extension from 5 to 16,  but this may require more deviation from the current design and thinking. For this, I would like to see more on qualitative pros/cons, but, given its little benefit, I am reluctant to accept this alternative.
SRD> I agree that I don't see value in the +9 to -9 proposal.
[JL] Agreed
[J] I presented this second  approach  so to review the possible alternatives as we usually do before selecting the solution, this alternative being already used in a recent RFC.   That being said, I am fine with the enumerated DRMP AVP.

Best regards

JJacques

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:39 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

Hi


1.      PRIORITY_14 as default priority value only allows one level of lower priority (PRIORITY_15)  than the default one; this seems not enough.  As use cases, we may have  some Machine type Communication (LTC) devices that may have lower priorities that normal communications without priority.  Even within a Diameter application, some commands may have a lower priority as having a secundary importance.


Then which default  value ?

-        it could be PRIORITY_8 in the middle, or if we prefer to have a  larger range for higher priorities  than for lower priorities,  the default value could be  e.g. PRIORITY_10,  giving 9 higher priorities and 5 lower priorities than the default one. I would have a preference for this value PRIORITY_10.


2.      About extensibility, the current range of 16 values is already large, but we can have  a reserved value to indicate a further extension. With  an enumerated AVP, there is no possibility to add new values.


3.      I also had a look to some other IETF RFCs addressing priorities that Ken mentioned, so to see if we can benefit from these approaches although done for different contexts.

-        in RFC 4412 (Resource-Priority Header in SIP), wps and ets namespaces have a range of 5 values (0 to 4) with 0 as the highest priority  . But I have not found some indication  (I may have missed it) about the default priority  (I mean a SIP request without  Resource-Priority Header compared  to a SIP request with the Header). Implicitly, I would assume a SIP request without  Resource-Priority Header corresponds to  the lowest priority.  DRMP has a similar approach but with  a larger range and also lower priorities.


-        RFC  6710 (priority for SMTP),  uses another encoding of the priority values with an integer between -9 and +9. Lower priorities  are negative an higher priority being positive. When a value increases, it means a higher priority, so the opposite  to DRMP, wps or ets.  But the value 0 is here naturally the default value. So this is an encoding alternative  to the  Enumerated type of the DRMP AVP which avoids the question of the default value.

Note: RFC  6710 also defines some Priority Assignment Policies using a subset of the range.

RFC 6710 has also this guideline :
   SMTP servers compliant with this specification are not
   required to support all 19 distinct priority levels (i.e., to treat
   each priority value as a separate priority), ....  That is, an
   implementation that only supports N priority levels (where N < 19)
   will internally round up a syntactically valid priority value that
   isn't supported to the next higher supported number (or to the
   highest supported priority, if the value is higher than any supported priority).

-        This raises the question to have this type of  guideline if considered useful.

So to have your feedback

Best regards

JJacques

De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de DOLLY, MARTIN C
Envoyé : jeudi 15 octobre 2015 12:33
À : Lee, Jay; ken carlberg; Steve Donovan
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

A couple thoughts:

1.      There needs to be a default value defined by the standard, so that equipment have the same value leaving the factory

2.      This value can be over written based on local policy

3.      Should have an extensibility bit in order to and more values in the future


From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lee, Jay
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 6:16 AM
To: ken carlberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Steve Donovan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

>From my side, some more discussion on Steve's mail may be needed.

'Should' vs. 'Must':
One can say that 'Should' is not mandatory. But, in practice, this is a fairly strong statement, and often taken as required. So in this sense, the proposed Note is certainly helpful. But, since we allow operators to override the value, I don't see the reason why we use 'Should'. My suggestion is using 'May'.

PRIORITY_14 priority:
Since operators can overwrite it, I was not too concerned about it. But if we want to put some value, why '14'? A value lower than 14 is suggested in order to allow more rooms for lower priorities.

Jay

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ken carlberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:40 AM
To: Steve Donovan
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Dime] diff-serb and two other ideas (was Re: [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels)

with respect to the diff-serv example brought up below, some thing to add to that discussion is that it starts off with separate and distinct forwarding behavior whose marked packets provide segmentation of other IP traffic.  The availability of only 6 bits to play with (along with the headaches of transitive trust) also discouraged a line of thought to define end-to-end priority handling versus a per diff-serv domain treatment.  RFC-4594 did provide configuration guidelines, but that's a different story.

So back to a couple of ideas to consider.

1) reserved space.  if we go back to the diff-serv model, the diff-serv working group agreed to set aside a set of values that was reserved for experimental use that could be re-assigned some time in the future.  I'm not suggesting that there should be space set side for experiments, but rather it may be prudent to set aside a reserved set of bits/values so that one doesn't need to define a new AVP if in the future there was a need to define added values beyond the 5 (plus some fudge factor) already mentioned on the list.

2) sets of users.  previous work (e.g., rfc-4412, rfc-6710) recognized that there can be several sets of users/services that are distinct from each other and yet need to prioritize the traffic.  I bring this up because the draft already identifies two sets of users in sections 5.1 and 5.2 (note: I'm assuming that the latter is aimed at the general public and related to 911/112/999 type calls, which should probably be more specific in the draft).  And there is also the potential of Firstnet users in the US.

As a side note, the distinction and separation of general public and other prioritized users in public phone infrastructures is not exclusive to the US, so the group should not be concerned that this is a US centric effort.  There has been GTPS in the UK, as well as other systems in other countries.  The RFC is a bit dated, but feel free to go over rfc-4190 for added background.

and just to reiterate.  I'm not making recommendations in the above - just bringing up some food for thought.

-ken


On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Steve Donovan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Jay,

The current text is a SHOULD level requirement:

   When there is a mix of transactions specifying priority in request
   messages and transactions that do not have the priority specified,
   transactions that do not have a specified priority SHOULD be treated
   as having the PRIORITY_14 priority.

As such, operators can choose to either not implement a priority or define a different value for their network.

I propose adding the following note after this paragraph to further explain why it is a SHOULD and not a MUST:

      Note: There are scenarios where operators might want to
      specify a different default value for transactions that do not
      have an explicit priority.  In this case, the operator defined
      local policy would override the use of PRIORITY_14 as
      the default priority.

This leaves the ability for there to be deterministic behavior in Diameter networks that require a default to be defined and are happy with the specified default.  It also gives operators the ability to define a different behavior, most likely with some priority handling/mapping at the edge of the network.

Does this address your concerns?

Regards,

Steve
On 10/14/15 2:59 AM, Lee, Jay wrote:
Regarding the issue of whether we need to specify a default value or not, there are pros and cons.

If we specify a value for the default case, we can see the benefits in scenarios between different operator networks, but we take away important options on what operators can do with priority values. On the other hand, if we do not specify the default value, operators may have more options, but there is a question of what to do for this inter-PLMN cases when the networks may use different default values.

In practice, this issue can be addressed at the edge of the network, where Diameter edge agent (DEA) can perform some priority mapping based on bilateral roaming agreement (or SLA (service level agreement)) and other means to insure the proper handling. One may argue that this is not as good as the 'deterministic' case, but operator should be able handle this in a reasonable way. We are fully aware of the fact that, in case of this 'non-deterministic' case, the default value can differ from one operator network to another, and it becomes difficult to guarantee the intended priority handling. Despite this, we still prefer giving options to operators by not specifying the default value.

What we are saying here, however, is not anything new. This is the typical way of handling priority levels. If anything, specifying the default value would be something new. As already mentioned in CT discussion, there is a good example of this - Internet QoS, more specifically DiffServ.

In order to guarantee end-to-end QoS for a specific service, IETF could have specified a value (DiffServ codepoint) for the specific service to have predetermined handling of the traffic, but IETF did not. Instead, DiffServ simply provided a framework for operators to have its own  classification and differentiated treatment of the services. To guarantee end-to-end QoS across different networks, then, operators need to do packet inspection, (re)classification, QoS mapping, use of SLA and possibly others at the edge of network (edge router). Therefore, in the DiffServ architecture, intelligence was pushed to the edge of the network. While the end results may not be guaranteed as well as in the case of predetermined handling, it was still a preferred way to give flexibility to operators. My point is that we went through all these troubles to give options of priority handling to operators.

By the way, if we are thinking of possibility of specifying the default value, are we assuming that all operators are interested in this feature (default value in the middle, and high and low priorities at other ends)? Aren't there other operators who are not interested in this feature? I know that at least there is one - Verizon. We have no interest in this feature, and no plan for implementing it. We are OK, if other operators are interested in this feature, and the default value is NOT specified. But we are certainly not happy if DIME is trying to impose this on us.

Jay

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:55 AM
To: Shaikh, Viqar A; Janet P Gunn; DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc: DiME; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Pollini, Gregory P
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels

Assuming that we define a range of 3 values,
Assuming that 0 is the lowest priority and 2 the highest,
Assuming that an agent receives 4 messages at the same time while being in overload control:
*       1) ULR with Prio-0
*       2) ULR with Prio-1
*       3) ULR with Prio-2
*       4) ULR with no priority AVP

Assuming that the default is locally defined as proposed below,

How do you know that the ULR with priority 2 will be handled with a higher priority  than the request without priority indication?
And what about ULR message with priority 1 with two levels of highest priority e.g. emergency/Important and government/very important?

Sorry if the answer is obvious but I fail to understand.

Lionel



De : Shaikh, Viqar A [mailto:[e-mail]]
Envoyé : samedi 3 octobre 2015 01:21
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Janet P Gunn; DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc : DiME; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Pollini, Gregory P
Objet : RE: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels

Hello all,

Note that the 3GPP priority, e.g., Priority-Level AVP (ARP AVP) in TS 29.212 takes 15 values, value 1 the highest, 15 the lowest, and value 0 not defined.

Having 15 rather than 16 would be useful from an interworking point of view on Diameter interfaces connecting to the EPS.

Also, my understanding has been that the default value is per local policy.

My 2 cents....
Viqar
________________________________
From: DiME [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:36 AM
To: Janet P Gunn; DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc: DiME; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
Hi,

I think that the case "no Priority indication in request" is the default situation today.
So if we agree that it should be possible to explicitly indicate a request with a lower priority, we should divide the range of priority values in three sub-ranges: [lower priorities][no priority indication][higher priorities], e.g. with 17 values: [0-7][8][9-16].
If any operator can freely fix the default value, there would be no way to ensure the sender that a request with a specific priority value (e.g. 6) will be handled with a lower or higher priority than a request with no priority indication.

Therefore, for a deterministic handling mechanism, I think that it is then more relevant to define a standard value for the default value.

Regards,

Lionel


De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Janet P Gunn
Envoyé : mercredi 30 septembre 2015 22:53
À : DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc : DiME; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels

Same here.  The "default priority" should be a matter of local policy.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose.



From:        "DOLLY, MARTIN C" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To:        Steve Donovan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date:        09/30/2015 04:40 PM
Subject:        Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels
Sent by:        "DiME" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
________________________________



Me as well

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:38 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #92 (drmp): Range of priority levels

I'm okay with Jay's proposal on not specifying a default value.

Steve
On 9/30/15 3:27 PM, Lee, Jay wrote:
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



_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
 _______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et

ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou

privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre

diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce

message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur

et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques

etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline

toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.

Merci.



This message

and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that

may be protected by law;

they should

not be distributed, used or copied without

authorisation.

If you have

received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this

message and its attachments.

As emails may

be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified,

changed or falsified.

Thank

you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et

ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou

privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre

diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce

message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur

et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques

etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline

toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.

Merci.



This message

and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that

may be protected by law;

they should

not be distributed, used or copied without

authorisation.

If you have

received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this

message and its attachments.

As emails may

be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified,

changed or falsified.

Thank

you.


_______________________________________________

DiME mailing

list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:DiME%40ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime