Re: Emergency Services and Service classes
Hi, Gary:
I provided some comments before. So, the same comments remain true.
The point is that we can accommodate the service class within the framework of other requirements along with the specific requirements that you have proposed.
For example, priority can be: 1. MLLP, 2. Emergency Services (as proposed by you), and 3. Other standards/proposals.
Similarly, quality proposed by you can also be accommodated: 1. IETF (guaranteed, controlled, best-effort), 2. TIPHON (Best, High, Medium, Best-Effort - as proposed by you), 3. Other ISTU-T SGs, and 3. Other standard bodies/forums.
In addition, there are other things as well. For example, there is a relationship (or dependency) between the priority and QOS at the call level. RAS Messages only provide the pre-call level scenarios. This also needs to be translated into call level scenarios.
So, the point that I like to point out is this: Let us address this from the general framework point of view so that all cases are satisfied including yours without "hard-wired" to any particular solution.
AT&T is bringing contributions along this line for the QOS and others.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Thom [mailto:gthom@delta-info.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:07 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Emergency Services and Service classes
All,
Attached is a preliimary copy of a contribution to the upcomming Brazil meeting. It still needs US approval.
It defines service classes using the generic extensible framework, and should be more applicable than just emergency services. Extension markers were put in to allow addition of new priority and quality values.
Let me know if you have any comments, suggestions, or questions.
Thanks Gary
-------------------------------------------- Name : Gary A. Thom Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc. Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3 Horsham, PA 19044 USA Phone : +1-215-657-5270 x123 Fax : +1-215-657-5273 E-mail : gthom@delta-info.com Website: www.delta-info.com --------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Radhika,
I agree, lets try to harmonize all the requirements for service class signalling. I would be happy to include other requirements, but I will need input from others.
I tried to make this generic, and extensible. And not specific for emergency services.
In particular, I have tried to abstract priority and quality (of media streams) from quality of service signalling. I understand that there is work being done on QOS signalling, and I am not trying to replace that, but maybe be one level above that.
Gary -------------------------------------------- Name : Gary A. Thom Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc. Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3 Horsham, PA 19044 USA Phone : +1-215-657-5270 x123 Fax : +1-215-657-5273 E-mail : gthom@delta-info.com Website: www.delta-info.com --------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO [mailto:rrroy@att.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:58 AM To: gthom@delta-info.com; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: RE: Emergency Services and Service classes
Hi, Gary:
I provided some comments before. So, the same comments remain true.
The point is that we can accommodate the service class within the framework of other requirements along with the specific requirements that you have proposed.
For example, priority can be: 1. MLLP, 2. Emergency Services (as proposed by you), and 3. Other standards/proposals.
Similarly, quality proposed by you can also be accommodated: 1. IETF (guaranteed, controlled, best-effort), 2. TIPHON (Best, High, Medium, Best-Effort - as proposed by you), 3. Other ISTU-T SGs, and 3. Other standard bodies/forums.
In addition, there are other things as well. For example, there is a relationship (or dependency) between the priority and QOS at the call level. RAS Messages only provide the pre-call level scenarios. This also needs to be translated into call level scenarios.
So, the point that I like to point out is this: Let us address this from the general framework point of view so that all cases are satisfied including yours without "hard-wired" to any particular solution.
AT&T is bringing contributions along this line for the QOS and others.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Thom [mailto:gthom@delta-info.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:07 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Emergency Services and Service classes
All,
Attached is a preliimary copy of a contribution to the upcomming Brazil meeting. It still needs US approval.
It defines service classes using the generic extensible framework, and should be more applicable than just emergency services. Extension markers were put in to allow addition of new priority and quality values.
Let me know if you have any comments, suggestions, or questions.
Thanks Gary
-------------------------------------------- Name : Gary A. Thom Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc. Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3 Horsham, PA 19044 USA Phone : +1-215-657-5270 x123 Fax : +1-215-657-5273 E-mail : gthom@delta-info.com Website: www.delta-info.com --------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
participants (2)
-
Gary Thom -
Roy, Radhika R, ALCOO