IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 16DF921F85B6 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:03:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Of8Lxc2ITp4N for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D365721F8754 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id qADG1nml012607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:03:14 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:03:13 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:03:11 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00
Thread-Index: Ac3BR1+168ruwQPLRpa8wFEFv16RMwAcNijQ
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE202D3002D95@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <05b001cdc13a$8a8f3f40$9fadbdc0$@cisco.com> (dwing@cisco.com) <201211130233.qAD2XQUZ938095@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <201211130233.qAD2XQUZ938095@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, "sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org" <sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org>
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 16:03:41 -0000

The action of putting something in an IANA registry defines nothing.

If you want to assign meaning to a value, it is the RFC text itself that does that.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Dale R. Worley
> Sent: 13 November 2012 02:33
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org; sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-
> sipcore-priority-00
> 
> > From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
> >
> > Can something be said about the difference between "non-urgent"
> > and "normal"?   I sort of get the feeling that non-urgent is
> > intended to have a lower priority than "normal" (just based on
> > the ordering), but that is not clear.  Just saying "have the
> > priority in the listed order" would help.
> 
> I support adopting draft-roach-sipcore-priority as a WG item.
> 
> It would be nice if there was an English word meaning "anti-urgent",
> but there doesn't seem to be one.  And "non-urgent" is fixed is RFC
> 3261.
> 
> Do the initial registry entries define the meaning of the initial
> values?  I notice that RFC 3261 doesn't provide meanings, even though
> it is given as the reference.
> 
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email