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

I also support this work
Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to 
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit 
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of 
e-mail for such purpose.

From:   James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>
To:     "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>, "sipcore@ietf.org" 
<sipcore@ietf.org>
Cc:     "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Date:   11/06/2012 11:05 PM
Subject:        Re: [Ecrit] [sipcore] Establishing a "Priority" header 
field registry
Sent by:        ecrit-bounces@ietf.org

I support this work

James

At 12:22 PM 11/6/2012, 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit