Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:47:18 -0500

This I-D introduces a group of new Resource-Priority header
namespaces, viz.:

      dsn-000000      dsn-000010      dsn-000020      dsn-000030  
      dsn-000001      dsn-000011      dsn-000021      dsn-000031  
      dsn-000002      dsn-000012      dsn-000022                  
      dsn-000003      dsn-000013      dsn-000023                  
      dsn-000004      dsn-000014      dsn-000024                  
      dsn-000005      dsn-000015      dsn-000025                  
      dsn-000006      dsn-000016      dsn-000026                  
      dsn-000007      dsn-000017      dsn-000027                  
      dsn-000008      dsn-000018      dsn-000028                  
      dsn-000009      dsn-000019      dsn-000029                  
      dsn-00000A      dsn-00001A      dsn-00002A                  
      dsn-00000B      dsn-00001B      dsn-00002B                  
      dsn-00000C      dsn-00001C      dsn-00002C                  
      dsn-00000D      dsn-00001D      dsn-00002D                  
      dsn-00000E      dsn-00001E      dsn-00002E                  
      dsn-00000F      dsn-00001F      dsn-00002F                  

Taking RFC 4412 at face value, these 50 namespaces are not
intrinsically related. And the I-D states that they operate
independently unless they are correlated within a SIP agent by local
policy -- which is exactly what RFC 4412 says.

But there is a long discussion in section 2 which seems to be
suggesting that "dsn" should be considered to be a name for the group
of all of these namespaces.  On the other hand, section 2.1 is titled
"One-Part or Two-Part Namespaces Do Not Change Anything", which
suggests that the I-D isn't really declaring that the "dsn-" prefix
has any fundamental significance.  This is made less clear by the fact
that some key words are missing from at a sentence that seems to be
defining the situation.

But what if I write an RFC defining the namespace "dsn-000032"?

It seems like there are three possible policies, and this I-D should
be clear which one it is specifing:

1. These 50 namespaces happen to have the same prefix, "dsn-0000", but
   that has no recognized significance.  In particular, it has no
   significance in regard to assigning other namespaces with the same
   prefix.

2. The author kindly requests that nobody else attempt to define a
   namespace with the prefix "dsn-".

3. The I-D is defining a standardized namespace grouping mechanism,
   and is registering the group "dsn" to be managed by DISA.  (Which
   implies a new IANA registry.)

Dale

_______________________________________________
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