Re: [Sip] -resource-priority-05.txt: Comments and Recommendations (2)

Mpierce1@aol.com Sat, 13 November 2004 19:02 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23831 for <sip-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:02:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CT3CJ-0005Rx-9X for sip-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:04:32 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CT30C-00006V-4C; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:52:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CT2vh-000816-W4 for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:47:22 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23331 for <sip@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:47:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Mpierce1@aol.com
Received: from imo-d20.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.136]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CT2xK-0004pa-Df for sip@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:49:03 -0500
Received: from Mpierce1@aol.com by imo-d20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id c.9b.526d64fc (4340); Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <9b.526d64fc.2ec7b08f@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [Sip] -resource-priority-05.txt: Comments and Recommendations (2)
To: oran@cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 10500
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Cc: sip@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0937479078=="
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36

In a message dated 11/13/2004 11:09:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
oran@cisco.com writes:


> If someone wants a namespace that has a "reject call rather than 
> downgrade" as its policy, why prohibit it? Or are you arguing that the 
> R-P draft should be silent on upgrade/downgrade/reject other than to 
> point out that the allowed behaviors are part of the namespace policy 
> definition? If that's what you're saying, I'm ok with that.
> 


Absolutely. Rejecting a call for this reason is perfectly okay. The R-P 
document should be silent on these types of issues, or, at the most, can mention 
the different types of behavior which "MAY" be used, but not attempt to 
associate each possible behavior with various namespaces.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip