Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces

On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>
>
> > Why priority values that are even only?
>
> Priority values are completely arbitrary.  If you wanted to, you  
> could have priority values
>
> YP17
> 42
> -Pi
> i
> e
>

I'm not concerned about the specific labels; it is hard to review a  
draft when one has no idea *why* things are being done. Why 10 levels  
as opposed to 5 or 7?

>
> I read nothing that suggests that one namespace (as a whole)can  
> preempt another namespace.  In fact that is explicitly forbidden.
>

The draft talks a lot about local policy.

> What is discussed as a possibility (consistent with RFC 4412)is  
> making two or more namespaces "equivalent".   For instance, if you  
> make dsn-000001 and dsn-00000A "equivalent" then dsn-000001.0 and  
> dsn-00000A.0 would be completely equal in priority.
>

I didn't find this in the draft, so maybe it should be called out  
more visibly.

> Similarly dsn-000001.8 and dsn-00000A.8 would be completely  
> equivalent in  priority.
>
> In this case dsn-000001.0 could neither preempt, not be preempted  
> by, dsn-00000A.0.  But dsn-000001.0 could be preempted by EITHER  
> dsn-000001.8 OR by dsn-00000A.8.
>
> And dsn-000001.8  neither preempt, not be preempted by, dsn-00000A. 
> 8.  But dsn-000001.8 could preempt EITHER dsn-000001.0 OR dsn-00000A.0
>

Again, without any notion of what all this is supposed to accomplish  
it's hard to do more than a syntax review and spell checking.

Henning

_______________________________________________
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