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

On 11/12/12 4:52 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I support the adoption.
>
> As I have indicated before, I think there should be some kind of template for the registration.

I guess that means you aren't ready to approve it.
Can you suggest some text?

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> ________________________________________
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Paul Kyzivat [pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 10:49 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
>