Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 21:01:47 +0100

(As WG chair)

We working group last called this a few weeks back.

I have been checking the revised version, and it seems to me that all
the comments have been addressed.

Does anyone else have any issues to raise on this document. I am
starting to prepare the IESG publication request, and it would be
helpful to know if more discussion is needed way before I finish this.

In the absence of response I will be declaring this document done, bar
the normal checks I do before the publish request in order to get this
document into a format for IESG.

Regards

Keith

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://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: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:43:18 -0500

I read it and it looked fine to me.

Janet

"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]> wrote on 12/06/2007

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:44:13 +0100

In my initial review of the document prior to submission, I have
identified the following points that are slightly more than editorial.

1)	I don't believe we need the abbreviation "RPH" at all. One of
the major usages is in conjunction with the word "namespace" and the
correct name of the namespace is the "Resource-Priority namespace" not
the "Resource-Priority header namespace". I would prefer to do what RFC
4412 does which is in the IANA section and at the first instance in the
document refer to the full name, and just use "namespace" elsewhere.

2)	Change abstract to:

   This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol 
   Resource-Priority namespaces, and places these namespaces in the IANA
register.  

3)	Section 2:

Change: This MAY change in future efforts.

To: 	Other namespace definitions in the future could change this.

Reason: Inappropriate usage of RFC 2119 language.

4)	RFC 4412 states:

  o  A namespace may either reference an existing list of priority
      values or define a new finite list of priority values in relative
      priority order for IANA registration within the sip-parameters
      Resource-Priority priority-values registry.  New priority-values
      SHOULD NOT be added to a previously IANA-registered list
      associated with a particular namespace, as this may cause
      interoperability problems.  Unless otherwise specified, it is
      assumed that all priority values confer higher priority than
      requests without a priority value.

The multiple namespaces defined in this document all use the same finite
list of priority values. Why do we need multiple new entries within the
Resource-Priority Priority-values registry, rather than just reuse the
same one.

NITS:

1)	Change section 1 from

Each will be RFC 4412 defined as preemption 
   based in nature, and will have the same 9 priority-values. 

To 

Each will be preemption 
in nature, as defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 9
priority-values. 

2)	Change section 1 From

   DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different RPH namespaces
   to different units of differing sizes throughout their networks. 
   Examples of this may be

To 

   DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different
Resource-Priority namespaces
   to different units of differing sizes throughout their networks. 
   Examples of this can be

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:02 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01
> 
> (As WG chair)
> 
> I have been checking the revised version, and it seems to me 
> that all the comments have been addressed.
> 
> Does anyone else have any issues to raise on this document. I 
> am starting to prepare the IESG publication request, and it 
> would be helpful to know if more discussion is needed way 
> before I finish this.
> 
> In the absence of response I will be declaring this document 
> done, bar the normal checks I do before the publish request 
> in order to get this document into a format for IESG.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> [email-masked] for questions on current sip

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:00:41 -0500

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>

   1)	Change section 1 from

   To 

   Each will be preemption 

I think the way you want to phrase that is "Each will use a preemption
policy, as defined in RFC 4412, ...".  It would read even more easily
if you said "Each will be preemptive [in nature], ...", but
"preemptive" does not appear in RFC 4412.  But "preemption policy" is
used in section 4.5.1.

Dale