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

13 nov 2012 kl. 02:02 skrev "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.
> 
Adam's draft seems to only be focused on adding the missing registry,
not trying to change the text in RFC 3261. I agree that RFC 3261 
lacks a specification of the values, except for emergency:

"It is RECOMMENDED
   that the value of "emergency" only be used when life, limb, or
   property are in imminent danger.  Otherwise, there are no semantics
   defined for this header field."

You know more about IETF procedures, but should we mix the two?
- Adding definitions of the values and the missing registry.

/O

> -d
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:49 PM
>> To: SIPCORE; sipcore-ads@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-
>> sipcore-priority-00
>> 
>> 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