Re: [Ecrit] [sipcore] Establishing a "Priority" header field registry

I support this work.  I agree with Christer about a registration template.  While it is obvious what is requested, I think it's better to have it.

I am happy with "IETF Review" as the management policy.

Brian

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> [as an individual]
> 
> The document draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback has identified a desire to add a new value to the "Priority" header field for SIP. While RFC 3261 clearly intended the values in this header field to be extensible, it did not define a registry of such values.
> 
> To address this oversight, I have put together a small draft that defines such a registry and populates it with the values defined by RFC 3261. Because this is a correction to the core SIP specification, it is my belief that it falls within the charter of the SIPCORE working group.
> 
> The only real open issue, in my opinion, is the IANA registration policy that should apply to new "Priority" header field values. To avoid blocking any work in ECRIT, we need to move this work (or something equivalent) forward very quickly. If you have any interest in the topic, please review and comment with some urgency.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00.txt
> 
> 
> [The following request is being made in my WG chair role]
> As this is a SIPCORE matter, please discuss it on the SIPCORE list rather than the ECRIT list.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore