Re: [salud] New version of the ABNF-syntax

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> From: Laura Liess <[e-mail]>
> 
> The first paragraph in both "Namespace considerations" and "Comunity
> considerations" states very clear that the "alert"  URN  is defined for
> SIP.  If we state this, we probably will have to change to urn:ietf:params,
> as Alfred required.
> Alfred required us to either describe very clear why we can not use
> urn:ietf:params or to switch to urn:ietf:params. In version 07, I to
> changed the 06 text trying to express that the "alert" URN is not just for
> SIP but is targeted to be used for signals or renderings in general.  The
> text itself is not important to me, I don't even know if it would help, I
> just want to remind you about Alfred's requirement.

I'll look into this question.  I tried to explain in detail why the
*management* of the URN space requires a separate scheme.  (Or
alternatively, applying all our management rules into a subtree of
urn:ietf:params.)

I'm not sure that use of URNs outside SIP is sufficient to show that
urn:ietf:params is not suitable.

What uses outside SIP are we contemplating?  My understanding is that
the URNs are defined to indicate facts about SIP dialogs, or about how
a user is to be told about a dialog.

Dale