Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt

absolutely

James

At 02:10 PM 10/17/2008, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>James, could you have a look at the issue below and if possible send a
>reply before next wednesday as I put this draft on the agenda for next
>Thursdays IESG call.
>
>Thanks, Cullen
>
>On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
>>draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt
>>
>>For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>><http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>>
>>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>you may receive.
>>
>>Summary: Almost ready for publication but I have a few comments.
>>
>>Major
>>=====
>>
>>* The draft assumes some kind of ordering requirement between
>>namespaces. From my reading of RFC4412, this is not the case.
>>
>>"Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority
>>header value:
>>
>>dsn-000001.8
>>
>>for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a
>>message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value:
>>
>>dsn-000010.0
>>
>>because they are two difference namespaces"
>>
>>e.g.
>>
>>Consider an RP actor that supports both the namespaces, dsn-000001
>>and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered list which contains
>>
>>dsn-000001.9
>>dsn-000001.8
>>dsn-000010.9
>>...
>>dsn-000010.0
>>
>>and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of
>>RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior
>>if dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over
>>dsn-000010.0? This might be a major misunderstanding on my part. If
>>so please correct me.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art