Re: ITU-T SG13: Framework for IP QOS (sigh..."mostly harmless"?)

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Friday, Feb 21, 2003, at 04:05 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand wrote:
> --On torsdag, februar 20, 2003 12:55:54 -0500 "David R. Oran" 
> <oran@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> >   	To support certain reliability and availability requirements,
> > priority-based admission control is added and the building block for
> > prioritized traffic restoration is introduced. In particular, four
> > priority levels are identified for admission control with the top 
> > priority
> > exclusively assigned to emergency communications and three priority 
> > levels
> > identified for traffic restoration. Details for the priority levels 
> > are
> > specified in a new annex-i.e., Annex 1.
> so a fireman's call is more important than making the network work...?
> (assuming that they don't have a fifth level for things like routing 
> protocols....)
>
> sounds like IEPREP fodder to me. Wonder where they got the number 4 
> from.
Hal Foltz (US NCS) keeps saying that the ITU-T already have standards 
for
telephony precedence that include the 8 precedence levels originally 
defined
by US DoD AutoVON, later included in RFC-791, and later adopted (with 
tweaks)
by NATO.  Those 8 include "network control" and "internet control" as 
the
uppermost 2 precedence values.

I'm not inclined to wade into the ITU-T swamp, but someone with more 
data
might want to point out to these folks that their proposal is 
inconsistent
with existing ITU-T Recommendations.

Ran