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

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:51:06 -0500

What Henning didn't say is that he and James have ANOTHER document
(currently in the SIP working group) which DOES address the Resource
Priority Header, and should probably be referenced in the document.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-resource-02.txt

 Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation
                             Protocol (SIP)

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:51 PM
To: Gunn, Janet
Cc: 'Ken Carlberg'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

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.

Gunn, Janet wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:53:34 +0000

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-resource-02.txt

we don't want to reference the above draft because its still a work in
progress.  its best to focus on RFC3487, "Requirements for Resource
Priority Mechanisms for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"

-ken