RE: [Sip] draft-gunn-sip-req-for-rph-in-responses-00: What is impacton response?

If this is an issue, I think it is an issue within the existing RFC in
regard to requests themselves:

RFC 4412 section 3.1.

   There is no protocol requirement that all requests within a SIP
   dialog or session use the 'Resource-Priority' header field.  Local
   administrative policy MAY mandate the inclusion of the
   'Resource-Priority' header field in all requests.  Implementations of
   this specification MUST allow inclusion to be either by explicit user
   request or automatic for all requests.

Additionally I could find no requirement that specified that the value
used in an INVITE request had to be the same as a value used in say, a
reINVITE request in the same dialog, even when the Resource-Priority
header was included in both requests.

I think this leads to the need of this discussion to clearly identify in
the questions raised:

-	whether the point concerns the enhancement to RFC 4412 to
support some new use cases;
-	whether there is a problem in the existing RFC 4412 itself, i.e.
the existing documentation is broken.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willis@softarmor.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:11 PM
> To: James M. Polk
> Cc: IETF SIP List
> Subject: Re: [Sip] 
> draft-gunn-sip-req-for-rph-in-responses-00: What is impacton response?
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 3:22 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> >> If the
> >> RPH value is not resent, then the RPH value would cease to apply.
> >
> > This isn't stated, but I think once a priority is 
> established within a 
> > dialog, it doesn't cease because a new transaction within 
> that dialog 
> > didn't contain the same namespace.priority-value.  But I do 
> expect any 
> > new transaction to contain at least the same RPH values as the 
> > existing dialog.
> 
> If RPH can change on a per-message cycle within a dialog, is 
> the transmission of a message without an RPH header within 
> the dialog the same as explicitly sending an RPH that conveys 
> no priority? This needs to be clear in the documentation.
> 
> --
> dean
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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