Re: [Sip] Strict, Semi-Strict and Loose mode in RPH

In a message dated 11/6/2004 7:21:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
dean.willis@softarmor.com writes:

> Would it be better to have each namespace definition fully define the 
> behavior of that namesapce, rather than trying to have some "templates" 
> that could be re-used by multiple namespaces?
> 
Absolutely, and as described in earlier versions of this draft, that 
documentation does not have to be in an RFC. That is also why I object to this new 
version -05. It requires an RFC for every new namespace. Future uses can not, nor 
should they have to, go through this excruciating process of producing an RFC 
just to register a new namespace.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
In a message dated 11/7/2004 9:24:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
carlberg@g11.org.uk writes:

> Also, when you say the NCS "owns" GETS and WPS, are you refering to the 
> systems
> or the namespace?  If its both, then I have my doubts about the latter.  I 
> see
> no association of the NCS with WPS or GETS in the draft and it would seem 
> that
> initial "ownership" of those namespaces, as well as the others like ETS, lies
> with the authors of the draft.  (I'll be happy to be corrected on that
> assumption).
> 
In the case of the DSN namespace, the previous version of this draft had the 
following for the definition of this namespace:

9.5.2  Namespace dsn

   Namespace: dsn
   Description: United States Defense Switched Network.  The values are
      adopted from RFC 791 [RFC0791], omitting the levels "critic-ecp",
      "network control" and "internetwork control", as these are
      inappropriate here.
   Documentation: ANSI T1.619, Section B1
   Organization: United States Department of Defense, Defense
      Information Systems Agency (DISA).

So, in a way, DISA does "own" this namespace. At least, DISA is responsible 
for defining its operation within its own network.
This material was removed from the latest version, which also is why I object 
to accepting version -05.

And, no, the "ownership" of these namespaces does not lie with the "authors" 
at this point. It is a Working Group draft, meaning that the "ownership" 
currently lies with the WG as a whole, and changes to this draft should not be made 
unless agreed to by the WG. There was never any discussion about many of 
these changes in -05.

Mike Pierce

Re: [Sip] Strict, Semi-Strict and Loose mode in RPH - not a good fit for ets ...