Re: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls

ken carlberg <> Fri, 21 October 2005 14:58 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESyLn-0004gW-U6; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:58:31 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESyLm-0004g8-8b for; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:58:30 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27255 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:58:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESyXv-0004TF-On for; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:11:04 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1ESyLL-0000pE-WF; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:58:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: ken carlberg <>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:57:58 -0400
To: "Reinaldo Penno" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hello Reinaldo,

> I read
> and was somewhat puzzled at section 4.1.2. I understand that the IETF
> wants to be conservative in standardizing new DSCP, but it seems to an
> emergency call DSCP would be accepted by the community (am I wrong?).

well, from my own take, I would say that the "community" is not  
against an emergency call DSCP per se, but rather awaits specific  
proposals with a cautious mindset.  Recall from that section 4.1.2  
that there is a need to define a behavior in addition to identifying  
a code point.  So if you want a code point of 1 or more bits for  
"emergency", what would be its defined forwarding behavior?

one such proposal, primarily aimed at MLPP, is called Multi-Level  
Expedited Forwarding (MLEF) and can be found at: 

I would also suggest reading a counter proposal that avoids defining  
a new DSCP: 
you can dig around the TSVWG archives over the past 2 months for some  
comments on the draft.


Ieprep mailing list