RE: [Sip] -resource-priority-05.txt: Comments and Recommendation s (1)

It's not.  This was one of my questions to you Tuesday, which I shared in my
post.  Given my perspective at the time, I saw this as an alternative to
passing multiple namespace/priority values in a single message.  After
speaking with you, I understood that there may be instances where multiple
values are perfectly acceptable.  This does not rule out such a mapping -
I'd argue that they will have to be defined when implementing this header,
if it will be able to pass across namespace boundaries - but as everyone is
stating, such mappings should not be defined with the header.

Corey W. Alexander

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Mpierce1@aol.com; An.Nguyen@ncs.gov; Alexander, Corey [NGD:X262:EXCH];
sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] -resource-priority-05.txt: Comments and Recommendations
(1)

Where is "mapping between namespaces" specified in the document now?

I do not believe there is such a sentence/comment/statement, and there 
should not be one, so why was this brought up?

At 03:22 PM 11/12/2004 -0500, Mpierce1@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/12/2004 11:58:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>An.Nguyen@ncs.gov writes:
>
>
>>Can we just add a sentence to the draft saying mapping between 
>>namespaces
>>is out of scope and it should be addressed separately?
>
>
>Yes, such a statement would be fine, but it should be along with a
>statement that all interrelationship between namespaces is out of scope.
>
>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

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented