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

Regarding 1), noone has yet responded as to why we need a template for a document where registration requires IETF work. The template is in my view there to ensure all the information that is needed is available for expert review. The document management of an internet draft means that if information is needed for review the next revision can provide it. We only need a template if someone decides a different registration policy is needed.

Regarding 2), I think defining more precise semantics of the existing values is too late in the game. Fine for new values, and in many ways, this is why we have a new value for the callback proposed elsewhere. So do not add these.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 28 November 2012 22:04
> To: sipcore@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-
> sipcore-priority-00
> 
> The WGLC and adoption deadline has now passed for
> draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00. Nine people (other than chairs and
> authors) made meaningful comments.
> 
> I conclude there is consensus to adopt this draft as a wg document.
> 
> Regarding WGLC, two notable issues were raised, and I don't yet see a
> clear consensus on those issues:
> 
> - should there be a registration template?
>    Christer advocates this, Keith opposes, Adam finds it unnecessary.
> 
> - should this document also spell out the semantics of all the priority
>    values defined in 3261? (Currently it only defines "emergency".)
>    Dan, James, and Roy in favor, Adam and I prefer not to do it *in this
>    document*.
> 
> So, I will ask Adam to submit a wg draft version of this document,
> otherwise unchanged.
> 
> While he is doing that, I would like to get a broader consensus on the
> issues above. I'll post a separate question on each of those, to keep
> the discussions separate.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 11/12/12 3:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE
> >
> > This is a request to the sipcore wg to adopt the new individual draft
> > draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00, and a start of WGLC on that document,
> > to end on Sunday, November 25, 2012. (This is a trivial doc to review,
> > but people may be slow getting back to work after the meeting and there
> > is a holiday coming in the US, so I'm giving more time than I otherwise
> > would.)
> >
> > The reason for this is that the ecrit wg wants to define a new value for
> > the Priority header field. RFC 3261 defines that header field and an
> > initial set of values. It also mentions the possibility of extension.
> > But it failed to establish an IANA registry for that purpose, and didn't
> > otherwise define a process for extension.
> >
> > The intro to *this* document explains its purpose:
> >
> >     This document defines a new IANA registry to keep track of the
> values
> >     defined for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Priority" header
> >     field.  This header field was defined in [RFC3261], section 20.26.
> >     It was clearly specified in a way that allows for the creation of
> new
> >     values beyond those originally specified; however, no registry has
> >     been established for it.
> >
> > Once that is done, ecrit will be able to make their extension in accord
> > with the registration procedures that have been defined. The
> > registration policy is "IETF Review", so discussion of the merits of
> > that new value can be discussed as part of the review of *that*
> > document: draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback.
> >
> > REQUESTED ACTIONS:
> >
> > - indicate (ASAP) willingness, or not, for the sipcore wg to work on
> >    this problem, and adopt this draft as the basis for that work.
> >
> > - provide any comments you have on this document before the end of
> >    the WGLC period (Friday, November 25.)
> >
> >      Thanks,
> >      Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipcore mailing list
> > sipcore@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore