At 11:35 PM 7/13/2007, Janet P Gunn wrote:
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.
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
Janet
"James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/13/2007 10:26:54 PM:
> 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-namesp
aces-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 PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
> Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
