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

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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
>Use sipping@ietf.org 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip