Subject: Re: [Sip] Priority header

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:09:03 -0500

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

Good point indeed.

I have logged a bug to include additional text to clarify the semantics 
of Priority better, since there generally has been confusion about it. 
The text will also say that the header is really only useful in requests 
that have some user provided policy as input to determine the response. 
After all, the point of priority is for UI or policy processing.

As such, I do think it is a mistake to include it in COMET. It might be 
useful in INFO depending on what its being used for. bis now specifies 
that it is not included in PRACK. Arguably, it might make sense in REFER 
"you really got to call this guy NOW", since there is policy in 
processing refer.

-Jonathan R.

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

_______________________________________________
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: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:25:14 -0500

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> After all, the point of priority is for UI or policy processing.

Yes, and a source of confusion that the wording in the Resource-Priority
draft tried to address.

> "you really got to call this guy NOW", since there is policy in

And MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, etc. - anytime a user choice is likely.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 16:44:27 -0600

>After all, the point of priority is for UI or policy processing.

Thank you -- clarification is needed in the .bis text, but it doesn't require
much IMO

>"you really got to call this guy NOW", since there is policy in 

This makes sense in the case of REFER. 

>-Jonathan R.

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com