IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Establishing a "Priority" header field registry

Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org> Tue, 06 November 2012 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
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 36A5D21F88B5 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:47:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 R+GPavaPufQv for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3268F21F88A1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so1262461iec.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:47:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=raSmnxFDMfyUBWhNQK19J3IlItwW3O6VZBEq+rboOqo=; b=aWfBs0yOH2mqSqFRf82OS9WHVHHYPczu/zNUXyuhC+uP9+XwtpA4qU82xjinf2MpoX qJjpGDaPlWSBC/OQ3s6x7VAFQ/Avu0wbp7gN7rRwR9iURInZY3ZRuVqynoUplWugvh12 oInMjWZTgwe1zGNF6d76G7kndroQKpRY6u8lyiPKMl+nDkR0kRftlohyYeIYyg1cg4ro n7ahiPvpIbP39UlOLiWiC9gTJ5aju8QoGgMdBcQ7Eg/2aztt8bJNDvQJMmnICQhCKTBe Rldr8i6AUlqhKT1Aivco7b9xiY9gDuRQAzDISxwvjOFT/xCvpN9rJaJk5iEf7ampW00l HGqQ==
Received: by 10.50.213.99 with SMTP id nr3mr2147732igc.16.1352227658751; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.12.152] (cpe-74-75-92-114.maine.res.rr.com. [74.75.92.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xn10sm8664156igb.4.2012.11.06.10.47.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_48FEB9C6-C36F-4BE2-9817-99C703EE2AB3"
From: Dan York <dan-ietf@danyork.org>
In-Reply-To: <7D126AA8-CCA4-4D88-82FA-796ADC0FFEB0@neustar.biz>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:47:36 -0500
Message-Id: <FD0F8A8A-993C-4EC6-93C8-F8683A033D1B@danyork.org>
References: <50993285.4020408@nostrum.com> <7D126AA8-CCA4-4D88-82FA-796ADC0FFEB0@neustar.biz>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUWSBpBQvZ40v+0yqLpMvXOc/dzYmThs6G0eVMnFvmRpvh22DDjDmSlvTZeSC7IvUPLfH4
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Establishing a "Priority" header field registry
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, 06 Nov 2012 18:47:40 -0000

+1 to Brian and Christer's comments and I support this work.    This seems a straightforward thing to do .

Dan

On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote:

> I support this work.  I agree with Christer about a registration template.  While it is obvious what is requested, I think it's better to have it.
> 
> I am happy with "IETF Review" as the management policy.
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
>> [as an individual]
>> 
>> The document draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback has identified a desire to add a new value to the "Priority" header field for SIP. While RFC 3261 clearly intended the values in this header field to be extensible, it did not define a registry of such values.
>> 
>> To address this oversight, I have put together a small draft that defines such a registry and populates it with the values defined by RFC 3261. Because this is a correction to the core SIP specification, it is my belief that it falls within the charter of the SIPCORE working group.
>> 
>> The only real open issue, in my opinion, is the IANA registration policy that should apply to new "Priority" header field values. To avoid blocking any work in ECRIT, we need to move this work (or something equivalent) forward very quickly. If you have any interest in the topic, please review and comment with some urgency.
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00.txt
>> 
>> 
>> [The following request is being made in my WG chair role]
>> As this is a SIPCORE matter, please discuss it on the SIPCORE list rather than the ECRIT list.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> /a
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Dan York  dyork@lodestar2.com
http://www.danyork.me/   skype:danyork
Phone: +1-802-735-1624
Twitter - http://twitter.com/danyork

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email