Comments on draft-ietf-ieprep-ets-general-03.txt

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

First, the spelling is entertainingly variable.  In addition to be
treated to questions of existance, we got authorization, authorisation,
and their relatives in a single paragraph.

More striking, though, is this:

  2) Admission Control

       The requirements of section 3 discuss labels and security.  In
       going beyond this, the ability to distinguish emergency flows
       implies the need for admission control if resources become
       scarce.  Solutions must recognize this when trying to satisfy
       the above requirements such that the simple presence of a label
       does not imply admission control always exists along the
       end-to-end path.

It is not clear to me whether this means "the requirements here
imply that admission control must be added to the Internet architecture"
or "there is a requirement to find solutions which do not rely
on admission control, since it is not part of the Internet architecture."
Clearing that up seems like a good idea.   I suggest:

	The requirements of section 3 discuss labels and security.
 	Those developing solutions should understand that the
	ability labels provide to distinguish emergency flows does
	not create an ability to selectively admit flows.  Admission
	control as it is commonly understood in circuit-switched
	networks is not present in IP-based networks, and schemes
	which presume the ability to selectively admit flows when
	resources are scarce will fail outside of very controlled
	environments.  Given the nature of emergencies to occur
	outside controlled environments, the development of
	technologies based on admission control is not recommended
	as the foundation of emergency services.