Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

James,

thanks for the explanation. I think it would be useful to identify  
who is asking for this and why, so that others can judge whether they  
can use the same namespace or not. I don't think we want some other  
draft in a year that has

foobar-00
through
foobar-49

Henning

On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:42 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Henning
>
> DISA wants to have 50 new namespaces within their network. It seems  
> the 2 we had in RFC 4412 weren't enough for their plans. Don't ask  
> me why we didn't know about this long ago, but some within that  
> organization had this planned many years ago.
>
> In a nutshell, they want to be able to assign different RPH  
> namespaces to different branches of service (army, navy, air force,  
> marines) as well as have temporary assignments to individual units  
> (say, one task force, which is separate than the branch of  
> service).  They came up with 50 as a good number to have at their  
> disposal.
>
> They have also upped the number of priority-values needed, with  
> each namespace having the same number (0 through 9).  The even  
> numbers were there because those are the only ones they plan on  
> using for the next several years. The old numbers are for future  
> use.  This draft should account for all that is known to be planned.
>
> I've tried to remove any new usage rules from this draft, but leave  
> in a few reminders about section 8 of 4412, so someone just looking  
> at this wouldn't see those rules not mentioned.
>
> I have a -01 available that calls out (more clearly) the  
> equivalency rules within section 8 of 4412.  This new version also  
> reduces the reminders of this to within one section of the draft.
>
> Does this help?
>
> James
>
> At 04:57 PM 10/31/2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Why priority values that are even only?
>>>
>>> Priority values are completely arbitrary.  If you wanted to, you
>>> could have priority values
>>>
>>> YP17
>>> 42
>>> -Pi
>>> i
>>> e
>>
>> I'm not concerned about the specific labels; it is hard to review a
>> draft when one has no idea *why* things are being done. Why 10 levels
>> as opposed to 5 or 7?
>>
>>>
>>> I read nothing that suggests that one namespace (as a whole)can
>>> preempt another namespace.  In fact that is explicitly forbidden.
>>
>> The draft talks a lot about local policy.
>>
>>> What is discussed as a possibility (consistent with RFC 4412)is
>>> making two or more namespaces "equivalent".   For instance, if you
>>> make dsn-000001 and dsn-00000A "equivalent" then dsn-000001.0 and
>>> dsn-00000A.0 would be completely equal in priority.
>>
>> I didn't find this in the draft, so maybe it should be called out
>> more visibly.
>>
>>
>>> Similarly dsn-000001.8 and dsn-00000A.8 would be completely
>>> equivalent in  priority.
>>>
>>> In this case dsn-000001.0 could neither preempt, not be preempted
>>> by, dsn-00000A.0.  But dsn-000001.0 could be preempted by EITHER
>>> dsn-000001.8 OR by dsn-00000A.8.
>>>
>>> And dsn-000001.8  neither preempt, not be preempted by,  
>>> dsn-00000A. 8.  But dsn-000001.8 could preempt EITHER  
>>> dsn-000001.0 OR dsn-00000A.0
>>
>> Again, without any notion of what all this is supposed to accomplish
>> it's hard to do more than a syntax review and spell checking.
>>
>> Henning
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
>> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
>> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip