Subject: [Iptel] Few comments on draft-iptel-tgrep-00

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 23:13:47 -0800

Few comments on the draft.

Section 3.2 - might want to include discussion that available circuits plus
circuits in use might not equal total circuits. At one point there was some
discussion that Total Circuits represents a maximum that will never be
exceeded and that the available circuits is the best estimate of remaining
resources given the current resource usage statistics. I think it would be
nice to have a bit more explanation what theses numbers represent.

3.2.2 - Open issue - do we need more specifications about minimal
threshholding implementation? Do we need less? Actually I see this as one of
the significant issues - how much should this draft define the threshholding
schemes? At one level they are a local implementation issue - on the other
end, if done really wrong, they protocol breaks.

3.3.1 - How does TGREP deal with the values wrapping? A call agent doing
1000 cps could wrap.

3.3.2 If we want to define some minimal threshholding scheme, should likely
add min and max update times for this.

3.5.1 - Max length of trunk groups is 128 bytes. Is this enough? Some trunk
group naming schemes are pretty verbose.

3.6.1 - The carrier ID inside of a given E.164 country code is 2 bytes. This
is ok for +1 but is it large enough everywhere?

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:37:12 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
<snip>
> is ok for +1 but is it large enough everywhere?
It occurs to me that having the carrier be binary instead of ASCII might
lead to problems particularly when we are comparing it with a tel-URI cic
(or whatever it gets called) parameter that contains leading 0s. I don't
know if there are any countries that have carrier codes with leading 0s or
variable length carrier codes today, but would 0123 and 123 be the same
carrier?

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:36:59 -0800

In the meeting today it sounded like people thought ASCII would be the best
choice. Any Objections?

Cullen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Penfield [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:37 AM
> To: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Iptel] Few comments on draft-iptel-tgrep-00
>
>
>