Re: [Sip] -resource-priority-05.txt: Comments and Recommendations (1)

05 is being rewritten as 06.

The point about independance of namespaces has been made.

Let's see what comes out in 06 before spending time on dissecting the fine
points of 05, which will almost certainly be OBE.

Janet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Mpierce1                                                                                   
                      @aol.com                 To:      jmpolk@cisco.com, Janet P Gunn/FED/CSC@CSC,              
                                               oran@cisco.com                                                    
                      11/16/2004 12:17         cc:      An.Nguyen@ncs.gov, sip@ietf.org, sip-bounces@ietf.org    
                      PM                       Subject: Re: [Sip] -resource-priority-05.txt: Comments and        
                                               Recommendations (1)                                               

In a message dated 11/15/2004 11:39:06 PM W. Europe Standard Time,
jmpolk@cisco.com writes:

 >The .03 draft (and I think also the .04 draft) had a paragraph that said
 >    "Namespaces do not describe how they relate to other existing
 >    namespaces, as each namespace is independent of other registrations."

 >
 >It doesn't seem to be in .05

 see (the new) section 7.1 about the warnings of multiple namespaces

I don't read anything in 7.1 as saying what the previous versions said.
What I think is needed is a very clear statement something like "neither
this document nor namespaces specify the interrelationship or interworking
between namespaces, such as mapping from one namespace to another at domain
boundaries". That was my understanding of the previous agreement.

As a result, the first bullet in Section 7.1, which states "There MUST be
one order of priorities a SIP element has to process to", while talking
about multiple namespaces in a message, seems to be wrong (or
misunderstood), since it seems to require something about the relationship.
In fact the example following this bullet list is trying to say something
about the "acceptable" ways that the SIP element may process multiple
namespaces. The part about what is "not acceptable" is not needed. The
examples of incorrect order within each individual namespace are not
allowed even without multiple namespaces.

Since the document should say that it does not address interworking between
namespaces, it should not contain this material.

I don't know what the second bullet is trying to say.

The third bullet is obvious, I thought, according to the rules of SIP. If
not, this statement could be worded better.

Section 7.1 should be deleted completely and replaced with a single
statement something like I proposed above.

( I guess this will start a long series of e-mails on what I find wrong in
-05.)

Mike Pierce

_______________________________________________
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