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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
