Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

If others don't think a template is needed, I will not argue for it. The important thing is that the process for defining and registering new values is clear to the readers.

Regards,

Christer



________________________________________
From: Adam Roach [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 9:56 PM
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: Paul Kyzivat; Christer Holmberg; SIPCORE; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00

I don't think you're being ignored; I'm waiting to hear from other
participants about whether we need a registration template. I really
don't have a strong opinion on the topic.

/a

On 11/13/12 13:50, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> I'm referring to these comments I made on the template proposal on 6th November which I copy here:
>
> " As regards the template (which other mails have suggested), we possibly do not need one.
>
> Part of this down to the level of review that is required; in the document this is set as IETF review. At this level, an RFC has to exist and go through IETF community review. There will be enough people around in this process to ensure that all the information that people need to see outside the IANA table actually exists. Conversely where we are allocating values on expert review, a template could be essential if only to ensure the expert doing the review has enough information available to perform the review; that information may well exceed the information that needs to appear in the template itself.
>
> Note that I did have a discussion with IANA on both these issues, and it would be wrong to say an opinion was expressed, Michelle seemed to be in alignment with these points."
>
> Keith
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 13 November 2012 02:58
>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat; Christer Holmberg; SIPCORE; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-
>> sipcore-priority-00
>>
>> On 11/12/12 16:46, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>> It might also be appropriate to answer the points I made in response,
>> rather than just repeating the demand.
>>
>> Are you meaning to indicate the question of whether this document
>> updates 3261? That seems to be the only point of contention you've
>> raised, and I've heard scant support for your position on that topic.
>>
>> By way of contrast, Paul, Ben, Robert and I -- the only others who have
>> engaged on this rather esoteric bit of IETF arcana -- have all stated
>> what *I* believe are lucid and defensible reasons that this draft is
>> required to update 3261. I'm certainly willing to consider the
>> conversation to be ongoing, if there are new points to be made.
>> Otherwise, this is clearly a non-technical matter of opinion about which
>> people seem to have already reached their own conclusions, and the
>> preponderance of the expressed opinion seems to put you in a minority
>> class of size one.
>>
>> /a