RE: [Sip] Resource Priority Header namespaces

I will leave James to respond to this as it impacts the draft, but
assuming we reach that stage, I will remember this point for the PROTO
writeup.

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:23 PM
> To: sip@ietf.org
> Subject: [Sip] Resource Priority Header namespaces
> 
> I read over the draft in last call requesting new RPH 
> namespace assignments.
> In and of itself it looks non-objectionable.  While I don't 
> understand the need for that many name spaces, or those 
> specific values, my first reaction is to say "okay" anyway.
> 
> However, I went and looked at RFC4412, which defines the 
> header namespace registration.
> That RFC calls for a standard track RFC for defining namespaces.
> And the text is quite explicit that one should not create a 
> multiplicity of namespaces, but should try to use existing 
> spaces first.
> 
> So, unless we want to check RFC4412, it seems that the 
> request for 32 namespaces in
> 	draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00.txt
> really needs more explanation / justification.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
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