RE: [Ieprep] <draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req-00.txt>

"Gunn, Janet NE" <Janet.Gunn@DynCorp.com> Wed, 12 June 2002 15:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02286 for <ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06595; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06559 for <ieprep@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chntex03.is.dyncorp.com (host-133-209.is.dyncorp.com [131.131.133.209] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02075 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:45:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by chntex03.is.dyncorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <LZBLFW28>; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:44:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CBED705A7FD2D311865500508B10894105D48CEB@chntex02.is.dyncorp.com>
From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <Janet.Gunn@DynCorp.com>
To: 'Ken Carlberg' <K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] <draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req-00.txt>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:44:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org

Ken, 
I have an earlier response from Henning that says: "Yes, just an incomplete
sentence. Should read:

 Thus, it is conceivable that the
priority indication can sometimes cause preemption, while otherwise it
just influences whether requests are queued instead of discarded and
what queueing policy is being applied."

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:K.Carlberg@cs.ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 9:13 AM
To: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: [Ieprep] (no subject)


Henning,

...

also, in page 3 you have the following...

>   Priority mechanisms can be roughly categorized by whether they use a
>   priority queue for resource attempts or whether they preempt existing
>   resource uses (e.g., calls). The choice between these mechanisms
>   depends on the operational needs and characteristics of the network,
>   e.g., on the number of active requests in the system and the fraction
>   of prioritized calls. Generally, if the number of prioritized calls
>   is small compared to the system capacity and the system capacity is
>   large, it is likely that another call will naturally terminate in
>   short order when a higher-priority call arrives. Thus, it is
>   conceivable that the system indication can sometimes cause
>   preemption, while otherwise it just

...it looks like the last sentence has been accidently chopped off.

-ken



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

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