Subject: [Sipping] 3gpp-urn AND service-identification-01

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:01:06 +0300

Hi,

as maybe you have noticed, a draft asking the registration of a specific
URN namespace for general use bye 3GPP has been submitted
(draft-monrad-sipping-3gpp-urn-namespace-00.txt).
Now, even if the draft is not specific for service identification, but
has a larger applicability, I do think that the Service-identification
draft has to take it in consideration.

In fact, the present version of the drage-sipping-service-identification
draft defines a new registry called "Service-ID/Application-ID Labels",
claiming that creating a new service at the top-level requires a IANA
action.

However the service-identification draft describes a *private extension*
to the SIP that enable a network or trusted SIP servers (like 3GPP) to
assert the service of authenticated users. 
So I do really think that these private networks should have the freedom
to define an its own *private* label that define a service, especially
if you consider that this label is thought to be used only within the
private networks.

Really, I don't understand why something that should be used only within
private/trusted network, like 3GPP, should require the usage of a IANA
registered label. 

/Sal

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

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:39:26 -0700

>draft has to take it in consideration.

I'm a wee bit confused by your comments here.  Can you clarify
what the 3gpp NID proposal does here that worries you?  Organizational
namespaces aren't exactly rare in the URN registry:  iso, oma even xsf.
3gpp looks to be asking for a very general entry of the same type,
at least if I'm reading the namespace considerations correctly.
		regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:42:41 +0300

Hi Ted,

I am totally in favor of a 3gpp NID proposal.
in fact I am just asking Keith to modify the service-identification
draft and let possible the usage of Organizational namespace.

At present in the Keith draft *creating a new service at the top-level
requires a IANA registration*.

regards
Sal