IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 E3DE521F843B for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:12:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XS5jdniM0bQg for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C51321F88B9 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:12:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2054; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352823149; x=1354032749; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6ZOSCZtw2jo7Oo5pby2JEDJlNppCwISRLAHOc1eK4Ow=; b=A+XV9oBCTNxg+l6R2CyDV87FQOzuWwWDqIJIJ4zOcTs9WWg9wzoiJo5G lor2RBIdpGWk/q75X/3P+E3JmstOv7bmeFXdhaPgCncqRRtW6gSsNeNyP ZfwlO1x0uD4Q85ggFn/M+t3llFKcdKB1eyJesutlcEAwRXmKOxWo3pVjE g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAOlwolCrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABEw22BCIIeAQEBAwEBAQEFAggBCh00CwUHAQMCCREEAQEoBxkOHwkIAgQBEgsFEodiBQyaCo9lkC0EjCqGVAOIWoUahFaDMo5YgWuDEA
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6894"; a="63858906"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2012 16:12:26 +0000
Received: from DWINGWS01 ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qADGCPuF009661; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:12:25 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'DRAGE, Keith (Keith)'" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "'Dale R. Worley'" <worley@ariadne.com>
References: <05b001cdc13a$8a8f3f40$9fadbdc0$@cisco.com> (dwing@cisco.com) <201211130233.qAD2XQUZ938095@shell01.TheWorld.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE202D3002D95@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE202D3002D95@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:12:25 -0800
Message-ID: <071401cdc1b9$abbf8ba0$033ea2e0$@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLFiIy4+KkzC1jWV5WNQy+oSr0azQHCqQVHAjyW7LOV2Gc6wA==
Content-Language: en-us
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 16:12:36 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:03 AM
> To: Dale R. Worley; Dan Wing
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org; sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-
> sipcore-priority-00
> 
> The action of putting something in an IANA registry defines nothing.
> 
> If you want to assign meaning to a value, it is the RFC text itself that
> does that.

RFC3261 made two mistakes:  (a) it provided no meanings for the four terms,
and (b) it neglected to create a registry.  I find it valuable to fix 
both (a) and (b), but draft-roach-sipcore-priority only fixes (b).

-d


> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
> > Sent: 13 November 2012 02:33
> > To: Dan Wing
> > Cc: sipcore@ietf.org; sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC:
> > draft-roach-
> > sipcore-priority-00
> >
> > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipcore mailing list
> > sipcore@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email