IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 13 November 2012 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD90B21F853F for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:27:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuCgFa+KcNft for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:27:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474C421F844E for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:27:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.12]) by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Nz2p1k0020Fqzac519T9aC; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:27:09 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id P9T91k00q3ZTu2S3U9T9ww; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:27:09 +0000
Message-ID: <50A2BB2B.2040301@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:27:07 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <05b001cdc13a$8a8f3f40$9fadbdc0$@cisco.com> (dwing@cisco.com) <201211130233.qAD2XQUZ938095@shell01.TheWorld.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE202D3002D95@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <071401cdc1b9$abbf8ba0$033ea2e0$@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <071401cdc1b9$abbf8ba0$033ea2e0$@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:27:11 -0000

(as individual)

On 11/13/12 11:12 AM, Dan Wing wrote:
>
> RFC3261 made two mistakes:  (a) it provided no meanings for the four terms,
> and (b) it neglected to create a registry.  I find it valuable to fix
> both (a) and (b), but draft-roach-sipcore-priority only fixes (b).

The question is how to do these things.

- we could decide to fix (b) and not (a)

- this draft could be enhanced to do both

- this draft could be left as is, and an errata filed against
   3261 regarding (a)

- we could leave this draft as is and submit another draft
   to fix (a).

Ecrit *needs* a way to add a new value, so they need (b) *soon*.
AFAIK nobody is currently suffering for lack of a fix for (a).

If we could do (a) *quickly* then doing them both in the same draft 
would be attractive. I just fear that we might end up squabbling for a 
long time of this mundane thing. If so, then I think the errata approach 
for (a) is more attractive.

	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email