Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:31:11 -0500

Maybe Henning can clarify, but the current version of
draft-ietf-ieprep-sip-reqs-03.txt says
"This document describes requirements rather than possible existing or
   new protocol features. Although it is scoped to deal with SIP-based
   applications, this should not be taken to imply that mechanisms have
   to be SIP protocol features such as header fields, methods or URI
   parameters."

It presents requirements for which a new header field is the "obvious"
solution, but no longer states it as a requirement FRO a header field.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Pg 11 reference to Henning's document - it no longer refers explicitly
> to headers.

the original passage is:

   [15] is a (soon to be) RFC that defines the requirements for a new
   header field for SIP in reference to resource priority.  This new
   header field is meant to provide an additional measure of distinction
   that can influence the behavior of gateways and SIP proxies.

my understanding is that it pertains to requirements for a header *field*.  
so yes, we are in agreement.
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:51:27 -0500

Indeed. The requirements draft takes great pains to be solution-neutral 
and thus does not address a specific mechanism. In reality, the number 
of possibilities aren't infinite, given the constraints of the protocol. 
There will shortly be a solution-oriented draft that does indeed propose 
a new header field, after trying to exhaustively go through all the 
design options and identifying why no other solution satisfies the 
requirements stated. As always, I might have missed possibilities or 
solutions, but I'm sure that participants in this and SIP-related 
working groups won't be shy in pointing out any such omission.

In short, Janet is correct.