IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 13 November 2012 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.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 10D5D21F8830 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 C-ps5PcUMAMm for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls4.std.com [192.74.137.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5B021F882B for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAD2XSKw007615; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:33:30 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id qAD2XR2r934128; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:33:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id qAD2XQUZ938095; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:33:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:33:26 -0500
Message-Id: <201211130233.qAD2XQUZ938095@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <05b001cdc13a$8a8f3f40$9fadbdc0$@cisco.com> (dwing@cisco.com)
Cc: sipcore@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 02:34:07 -0000

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email