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

It might also be appropriate to answer the points I made in response, rather than just repeating the demand.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 12 November 2012 22:33
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: SIPCORE; sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-
> sipcore-priority-00
> 
> On 11/12/12 4:52 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I support the adoption.
> >
> > As I have indicated before, I think there should be some kind of
> template for the registration.
> 
> I guess that means you aren't ready to approve it.
> Can you suggest some text?
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of
> Paul Kyzivat [pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 10:49 PM
> > To: SIPCORE; sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC:  draft-roach-
> sipcore-priority-00
> >
> > 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