[Ieprep] Re: [Tsvwg] <draft-lefaucheur-emergency-rsvp> : Preemption scope

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org> Wed, 07 June 2006 06:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnrXH-00014d-PS; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:28:59 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnrXF-00014P-IJ; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:28:57 -0400
Received: from gw.openss7.com ([142.179.199.224]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnrXD-0000T1-4U; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:28:57 -0400
Received: from ns.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:R6/E2TdE/wkjEq/USo3Fksz0aQyZLY9I@ns1.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.1]) by gw.openss7.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k576Sqq32263; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:28:52 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by ns.pigworks.openss7.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k576SpV17729; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:28:51 -0600
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:28:51 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Message-ID: <20060607002851.A16971@openss7.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>, tsvwg@ietf.org, ieprep@ietf.org
References: <20060606175824.B13072@openss7.org> <OF2D94E4F4.E39BBAEF-ON85257186.000A9F19-85257186.000E1033@csc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <OF2D94E4F4.E39BBAEF-ON85257186.000A9F19-85257186.000E1033@csc.com>; from jgunn6@csc.com on Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:33:35PM -0400
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: [Ieprep] Re: [Tsvwg] <draft-lefaucheur-emergency-rsvp> : Preemption scope
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org

Janet,

Janet P Gunn wrote:                        (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:33:35)
> 
> It also says explicitly "Our reasoning and conclusions set forth above do
> not necessarily extend to other priority schemes "
> 
> I agree it would be a whole lot cleaner if there was somewhere that
> explicitly SAID "preemption is not permitted".
> 
> But it is not that hard to "read between the lines" the IMPLICIT assumption
> that "preemption is not permitted".
> 
> From a practical matter, the fact that all the carriers BELIEVE "preemption
> is not permitted" is sufficient ( at least until the FCC comes out with an
> explicit statement) to ensure that preemption is not going to be offered by
> the US carriers.
> 

Thank you for taking the time to humor me with the details!  I think
that I have some understanding of the predicament now from your
excellent explanation.

Nevertheless, does not calling preemption "unlawful" beg the question?

Also, it appears that the preemption that was excluded from PAS was
preempting "established" calls.  Do you recall there anywhere being a
definition of when a call is "established"?

Barring such a definition, one, I suppose, could assume that once
participants in the call have exchanged greetings that it is
established.  Because RSVP call admission is performed long before this
point, there is a period of time after RSVP admits the call until the
RTP channel is established and operational that RSVP could "preempt"
the admission without preempting an "established" call.

In fact, during a disaster which has stimulated a mass calling event,
this is a critical period.

> It also says explicitly "Our reasoning and conclusions set forth above do
> not necessarily extend to other priority schemes "

Would not that also exclude, preemption or not, any scheme not precisely
PAS?

ETS for RSVP is certainly not precisely PAS.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep