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@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf