James, could you have a look at the issue below and if possible send a
reply before next wednesday as I put this draft on the agenda for next
Thursdays IESG call.
Thanks, Cullen
On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Summary: Almost ready for publication but I have a few comments.
Major
=====
* The draft assumes some kind of ordering requirement between
namespaces. From my reading of RFC4412, this is not the case.
"Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority
header value:
dsn-000001.8
for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a
message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value:
dsn-000010.0
because they are two difference namespaces"
e.g.
Consider an RP actor that supports both the namespaces, dsn-000001
and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered list which contains
dsn-000001.9
dsn-000001.8
dsn-000010.9
...
dsn-000010.0
and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of
RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior
if dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over
dsn-000010.0? This might be a major misunderstanding on my part. If
so please correct me.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
