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

On 11/19/12 4:04 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> So, what's the status of the document?
> When does it become a WG item (given the support it has received)?
> When will the WGLC be started?

I called a simultaneous request for approval to adopt and WGLC.
It is to be completed Sunday Nov 25.

There have been a number of comments. (Thanks to those who have commented.)

I have seen no objections to adoption, so I expect that to happen as 
soon as the period is over.

We will have to look at the comments to see what changes, if any, need 
to be made to the draft. Depending on the extent of those we may or may 
not need another review. But based on what I have seen I doubt we will 
need a lot of time after Nov 25 to finalize it.

	Thanks,
	Paul (as co-chair)

> On Nov 12, 2012, at 10:49 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
>
>