Yes, we absolutely must address them in the context of real-life architecture deployment scenarios. Janet "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <mdolly@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep > > _______________________________________________ > Ieprep mailing list > Ieprep@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf