Subject: [issue46] Up to 8 priorities supported by the TML

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:13:50 +0000

New submission from Robert Haas <[email-masked]>:

Sec 4
[...]
It is expected that the TML will be able to handle up to 8 priority levels 
needed by the PL layer and will provide preferential treatment.

Writing "up to" means that the TML may support no priorities at all too. Is 
this what we intended to say ? Clarify and write MAY, SHOULD or MUST.

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 103
nosy: rha
priority: Should fix
status: No discussion
title: Up to 8 priorities supported by the TML

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue46>
___________________________________________________

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:24:51 -0400

> this what we intended to say ? Clarify and write MAY, SHOULD or MUST.

There may be cases where the underlying transport and hence the TML is
not capable of 8 levels even when the PL wishes it to be so.
Unless we define the semantics of the prioritization to mean between PL
and TML.

cheers,
jamal

PS:- I am responding to as many tracked issues which have shown up so we
can reach faster closure.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:08:51 -0400

I think there are two issues here.
I don't think that we wanted to require that all TMLs be able to handle 8 
different priorities.  We expected that some would handle only two.
On the other hand, I think we did want to require that the TML give 
different handling to some levels.  To make that useful, we may want to 
specify a little more (like, if the TML does two levels that 0-3 go in one 
level and 4-7 go in the other.)

Yours,
Joel