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