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

["Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>]

>         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."

I just read it as "caveat emptor - labeling traffic does not provide all of
the same properties as admission control". Presumably, some readers of the
document might be confused about the matter.

I think your text below is an improvement, and I imagine it would probably
be acceptable to the authors.

- J

> 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.
> 
>