Subject: [Sip] Priority header

From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:41:19 +0100

I was checking the inclusion of the Priority header in the various methods,
and coming up with strange and inconstent answers.

The bis draft says it is optional to include only in the INVITE request.
The manyfolks draft says it is optional to include in the COMET request.
RFC 2976 says it is optional to include in the INFO request.
The refer draft says that it is not included in a REFER request.

I assume that there is some ISUP mapping reason why it is included in an
INFO, presumably because the information came later than when the INVITE was
sent - is this true? If untrue, then it should not be in INFO.

I cannot understand why it is included in a COMET request - is this an error
in manyfolks?

I would have thought that it could have been useful in REFER. Any views?

Keith
Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +44 1793 776249
Email: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: William Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:39:24 -0400 (EDT)

I know of no reason to include a Priority header in a COMET.  A cut/paste
error.  I'll remove that entry in the next manyfolks update.

Bill Marshall
[email-masked]

-----original message-----
From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:41:19 +0100
Subject: [Sip] Priority header

Keith
Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +44 1793 776249
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:52:10 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:41 AM
> To: [email-masked]

Priority is one of these mostly harmless headers. If it doesn't make sense
in a method, its inclusion doesn't hurt anything.

INFO could potentially be used for things beyond ISUP mapping, and there
very well could be some reason why the INFO request needs to be processed
with high priority. 

> I would have thought that it could have been useful in REFER. 

As something like "this is a really important call transfer" ? I guess it
can't hurt.

-Jonathan R. 

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:57:59 +0100

See below.
Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +44 1793 776249
Email: [email-masked]

> ----------
> From: 	Jonathan Rosenberg[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	19 September 2001 4:52
> To: 	'Drage, Keith (Keith)'; [email-masked]
> Subject: 	RE: [Sip] Priority header
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
This would be a justification if Priority had been included in all and
everything, but Priority appears to be one of those headers where the usage
is directed to where it is useful. In the bis draft it is only included in
INVITE.

> very well could be some reason why the INFO request needs to be processed
Your response implies to me that you suggesting a transaction level
understanding of Priority. I was not aware that Priority applied at the
transaction level, but rather than at the application level. As INFO is only
used within an existing session, then that gives the entire session priority
- which brings us back to a question of what circumstances exist where
Priority information is not available at the time of sending an INVITE
request, but is available at the time of sending a subsequent INFO request.