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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Regarding 1), noone has yet responded as to why we need a template for a document where registration requires IETF work. The template 
>is in my view there to ensure all the information that is needed is available for expert review. The document management of an internet 
>draft means that if information is needed for review the next revision can provide it. We only need a template if someone decides a different 
>registration policy is needed.

Fair enough. I hereby withdraw my request for a template :)

Regards,

Christer


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 28 November 2012 22:04
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: 
> draft-roach-
> sipcore-priority-00
> 
> The WGLC and adoption deadline has now passed for 
> draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00. Nine people (other than chairs and
> authors) made meaningful comments.
> 
> I conclude there is consensus to adopt this draft as a wg document.
> 
> Regarding WGLC, two notable issues were raised, and I don't yet see a 
> clear consensus on those issues:
> 
> - should there be a registration template?
>    Christer advocates this, Keith opposes, Adam finds it unnecessary.
> 
> - should this document also spell out the semantics of all the priority
>    values defined in 3261? (Currently it only defines "emergency".)
>    Dan, James, and Roy in favor, Adam and I prefer not to do it *in this
>    document*.
> 
> So, I will ask Adam to submit a wg draft version of this document, 
> otherwise unchanged.
> 
> While he is doing that, I would like to get a broader consensus on the 
> issues above. I'll post a separate question on each of those, to keep 
> the discussions separate.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 11/12/12 3:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore