IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Roy, Radhika R CIV (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil> Wed, 14 November 2012 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
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 EDAA521F849B for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6-O1IjiNvU-F for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196B321F8465 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from UCOLHP3N.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.153) by ucolhp2w.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:44:42 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP9H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.5.171]) by UCOLHP3N.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.153]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:44:42 +0000
From: "Roy, Radhika R CIV (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00
Thread-Index: AQHNweWqCnlenuma00CJ0LCXdy90K5fpRaog
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:44:41 +0000
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF4865E763@ucolhp9h.easf.csd.disa.mil>
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> <50A2BB2B.2040301@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <50A2BB2B.2040301@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.62.4]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01CDC23B.E9422E60"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:00:42 -0800
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@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: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:45:08 -0000

Hi, Paul:

It is not true. We are suffering for not fixing (a) because of
incompatibility in implementations from the SIP application layer to the
IP/MPLS network (RSVP, DiffServ DSCP code points) layer along with dealings
of emergency (E911) calls. 

We have to see all RFCs as I mentioned to an email to Adam that our
explanations and semantics of RFC 3261 must be consistent with respect to
other RFCs as well: 

"RFCs 4411 and 4412, 5478, 6433, 6061, 5031, and 3689 need to be seen for
some guidance before explaining the labels so that terminologies and
definitions do not overlap or contradict."

BR/Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:27 PM
To: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC:
draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00

(as individual)
....
nobody is currently suffering for lack of a fix for (a).
....
	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email