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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 B93A821F8577 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:27:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 5EUVh9jsO0jU for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB01F21F844A for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qADFQmnp081284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:26:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <50A160D8.8030602@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:26:48 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F06682A3-AA5F-4215-BB44-AB5363D7A462@nostrum.com>
References: <50A160D8.8030602@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: SIPCORE <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 15:27:10 -0000

I support adoption. I will provide WGLC comments separately.

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