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

On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> I support adoption. I will provide WGLC comments separately.
> 

And here's that promised followup:

I think the draft is pretty much ready to go as is. I've already stated my position on updating 3261, and I have no opinion on the template question.

I concur with Adam that this draft should not attempt to fix the meaning of any existing values. If it's important to do so, I think that should be a separate effort.

> On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore