Yes, we absolutely must address them in the context of real-life
architecture deployment scenarios.
Janet
"Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/16/2006 08:29:59 AM:
> Janet,
>
> I agree that the items you listed below are best analyzed/discussed in
> the IETF, for as long as real-life architecture deployment scenarios are
> taken into account.
>
> Martin
>
> Janet Gunn wrote on 11/16:
> Some of the possibilities in that continuum include (in no particular
> order):
> - Allowing extra sessions in, and permitting degradation in QoS across
> all
> sessions.
> - Allowing a higher packet drop rate across all the "lower priority"
> calls.
> - Negotiating a lower bandwidth allocation, possibly accompanied by a
> changing to a lower rate bandwidth codec when a higher priority session
> needs to "preempt".
> - Negotiating (or arbitrarily imposing) a different PHB (e.g. AF or BE
> rather than EF) for lower priority sessions when a higher priority
> session
> needs to "preempt".
> - Different Capacity Admission Control mechanisms for different priority
> sessions.
>
> The analysis/understanding of these (and other) alternatives is much
> better
> done in the IETF than in the historically-circuit-swiched SDOs.
>
> Janet
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ieprep mailing list
> Ieprep@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ieprep mailing list
> Ieprep@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
