Subject: [Sip] Update to draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:26:54 -0500

SIP WG

I've updated this ID for your consideration.

I've cleaned up the number of new namespaces, as well as the number 
of priority-values per namespace.

This is a very simple IANA registration document with a very small 
update to RFC 4412 included, which is adding a delimiter in RPH 
namespaces to enable sub-namespaces.

The requirement for this is old from a very large customer, and has 
already been codified by most (all?) willing vendors of this customer.

Comments are appreciated

James

>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt
>
>         Title           : New Session Initiation Protocol 
> Resource-Priority Header Namespaces for the Defense Information Systems Agency
>         Author(s)       : J. Polk
>         Filename        : draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt
>         Pages           : 12
>         Date            : 2007-7-13
>
>This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol
>    Resource-Priority header namespaces, to be IANA registered.  This
>    document intends to update RFC 4412, as a Proposed Standard document
>    if published by the RFC-Editor.

_______________________________________________
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: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:35:47 -0400

Mainly editorial comments.

It is a little  confusing that section 2.1 refers to
"dsn-usarmy
 dsn-usnavy
 dsn-usairforce
 dsn-usmarines"

but those are not among the new namespaces being created in this document. 
 It would be clearer if you used the actual proposed namespaces (e.g.,
dsn-000000      dsn-000010      dsn-000020      dsn-000030) in the 
discussion of section 2.1.

When I was explaining the earlier version to someone, we got off on an 
extended tangent about whether or not DISA "would separate army calls from 
navy calls".  If the example  used the numerical "sub domains", that 
confusion would be avoided.

If I am understanding correctly, there is (or a least may be) a one-to-one 
correspondence between the "domain-subdomain" as defined here, and the 
"domain-subdomain"  defined in draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00. 
draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00 mentions this relationship.  Would 
it make sense to mention the relationship here as well?

Janet

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:21:06 -0500

At 11:35 PM 7/13/2007, Janet P Gunn wrote:

>but those are not among the new namespaces being created in this 
>document.  It would be clearer if you used the actual proposed 
>namespaces 
>(e.g.,dsn-000000      dsn-000010      dsn-000020      dsn-000030) in 
>the discussion of section 2.1.

I suppose I could use example that are being registered, but the idea 
of a division of a domain by recognized service boundaries is 
something that I thought would help readers understand the concept better with.

>When I was explaining the earlier version to someone, we got off on 
>an extended tangent about whether or not DISA "would separate army 
>calls from navy calls".

well.... they have had us vendors plan and codify for this for more 
than 2 years, so it's a reality.

>If the example  used the numerical "sub domains", that confusion 
>would be avoided.

what would you change the description to?

DSN is a domain. Divide it up into several subsets of domains and one 
c/would logically come up with the term sub-domain -- mean part of 
the larger, which each is in this case.

>If I am understanding correctly, there is (or a least may be) a 
>one-to-one correspondence between the "domain-subdomain" as defined 
>here, and the "domain-subdomain"  defined in 
>draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00.

this *can* be a configuration, but it does not have to be - so this 
relationship (as you mention) isn't a hard-and-fast rule to be 
universally applied to either doc.

>draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00 mentions this 
>relationship.  Would it make sense to mention the relationship here as well?

I can mention draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00 as an 
informative reference in this doc, yes.

James

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:58:18 -0400

> >the discussion of section 2.1.
...
> the larger, which each is in this case.
 
Probably, I would just add a sentence  saying something like 
"These examples illustrate the principle of the domain and subdomain 
within a namespace but are not the actual namespaces being registered."

Janet

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:17:55 -0500

>within a namespace but are not the actual namespaces being registered."

something like this is easy to add, so I will.