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

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

At 10:12 AM 11/13/2012, Dan Wing wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:03 AM
> > To: Dale R. Worley; Dan Wing
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > 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).

I have to agree with Dan here. In the proposed registry within this 
ID, it gives 4 terms and lists RFC 3261 as the reference, but it 
doesn't define what any of those terms are (which is bad). 
"psap-callback" should have a definitive definition within its ID to 
describe what it is used for. Lacking the ability to update RFC 3261 
(anytime) soon, I would prefer an option-tag style new registry in 
which the term/string definition is within the registry, such as this:


Registry:
Name            Description                                 Reference
-----------     ------------------------------------------  ---------
non-urgent      This Priority header-value means ...        [RFCxxxx]

normal          This Priority header-value means ...        [RFCxxxx]

urgent          This Priority header-value means ...        [RFCxxxx]

emergency       This Priority header-value means ...        [RFCxxxx]

note: where RFCxxxx is Adam's document, because it provides the 
meaning of the terms, which are more important than which doc picked 
the undefined terms (which is what RFC 3261 did).

 From this, I am suggesting this ID's section 2 be changed to the 
above (in case that wasn't obvious). I know this is making a bigger 
deal out of a little used header, but RFC 3261 didn't do what it was 
supposed to do here, and this is a good make-up.

then we just have to agree on the definitions that RFC 3261 didn't 
discuss. I know this will add a bunch of time (like 2 whole weeks) to 
reach consensus, but then psap-callback would fit nicely into this registry.

James


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