RE: [Sip] S-S-L mode in RPH for ets and wps (#5)
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 08 November 2004 21:24 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03187 for <sip-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:24:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRH0V-00068N-3b for sip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:25:00 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRGf3-0005su-Qo; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:02:49 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRGW2-0008Vy-CI for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:53:30 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00538 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:53:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRGWd-0005KM-Uy for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:54:08 -0500
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2004 13:04:27 -0800
Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iA8KqSnC028785; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jmpolk-w2k01.diablo.cisco.com (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id MAA13857; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20041108144108.03309830@localhost>
X-Sender: jmpolk@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:52:56 -0600
To: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [Sip] S-S-L mode in RPH for ets and wps (#5)
In-Reply-To: <OFD10D1C6C.CB9493C7-ON85256F46.00665F00-85256F46.0069D0C6@ csc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8
Cc: fonashp@ncs.gov, Darren E Pado <dpado@csc.com>, Saud Negash <snegash@csc.com>, mosleyv@ncs.gov, Richard F Kaczmarek <rkaczmarek@csc.com>, sip@ietf.org, nyquetek@msn.com, a.ephrath@ieee.org, Ken Carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>, KENNETH.R.ERNEY@saic.com, suracif@ncs.gov, Dennis Q Berg <dberg3@csc.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 2086112c730e13d5955355df27e3074b
comments in-line I shortened the subject line BTW At 02:13 PM 11/8/2004 -0500, Janet P Gunn wrote: >James said: >___ > > > > 5 Precedence (queueing) is generally the means of providing priority, >but > > > exemption from network management controls, for instance call admission > > > within an IP domain, when a "regular" call would not be admitted, is >also > > > needed. Pre-emption is not used. (semi-strict "plus more") > >I do not understand what you have written above, can you rephrase please? >___ > >OK. I'll try again (and I combined two different cases, which didn't help >the clarity). > >Section 7 says > "The ets and wps namespaces operate with preferential treatment but > without preemption. These namespaces operate under a policy of > provide preferential treatment to higher relative priority requests > instead of processing lower relative priority requests. Messages > are not preempted, or deleted, except under extreme loads in which > all available processing is taken up with higher priority messages. > > An example of this is at a IP/PSTN gateway with all of the PSTN side > circuits utilized. In strict mode one of the lower priority > circuits would be freed using preemption. In semi-strict mode, the > SIP request May be granted access to the next available circuit > based on this header's presence in the authorized message, > regardless of how many other "regular" requests are received at that > gateway." > >First, is that "May" supposed to be "MAY" or "may"? MAY I mistyped it Now, you could contract that this is a MUST within whoever you contract with for IP carrier. This is a big difference that should be pointed out here, the difference between market requirements and protocol requirements. A doc can say "MAY", but a customer can demand that aspect be a MUST in their network. If the doc says MUST (or even SHOULD in most cases), equipment vendors really don't have a choice but to code this feature into their products, even if 1 or more customers do not use it. This is a marketing decision. >But more significantly, the desired behavior at the PSTN gateway is more >complicated than what you describe; I could write a book about exactly how many behaviors are to be.... but I may have oversimplified things here. >-At an IP/PSTN gateway with all of the PSTN side circuits utilized, not >only would the request with the appropriate RPH be granted "the next >available circuit" but if several requests with the appropriate RPH arrive, >they would be queued for the next several circuits to become available. true, I didn't get into the multiple request scenario - I could add this here, but do not want to account for every permutation for each behavior every time. All documents would be very long in this philosophy. >- At an IP/PSTN gateway, "restrictive network management controls" may be >active, even if not all PSTN side circuits are utilized. (An example of >a "restrictive network management control" is "call gapping" in which only >one call every x seconds is accepted. "Call gapping" is usually made >active as a response to overall network congestion, a bit like ECN in an IP >network). If restrictive network management controls are active, a request >with the appropriate RPH would be granted an available circuit, even if >less than x seconds had passed since the last call was admitted. I will restate to "all available circuits are utilized" to account for this. but do not want to get into restrictive mgmt control. >- At an IP/PSTN gateway, if the request has the appropriate RPH, certain >parameters (CPC and/or Precedence) would be set in the ISUP IAM. this isn't a SIP issue, this is a translation issue that the GW vendor is to deal with. >I don't see anything in the RPH ID that prevents this "additional" >functionality, so this comment doesn't necessarily mean anything needs to >change. It was just that the current text is a little misleading in that >it seems to imply that "access to the next available circuit" is all that >is intended. I think I cleaned up the text appropriately to your above points >Janet > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please >delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in >delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to >bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written >agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail >for such purpose. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cheers, James ******************* Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented _______________________________________________ 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
- RE: [Sip] S-S-L mode in RPH for ets and wps (#5) James M. Polk