In my initial review of the document prior to submission, I have
identified the following points that are slightly more than editorial.
1) I don't believe we need the abbreviation "RPH" at all. One of
the major usages is in conjunction with the word "namespace" and the
correct name of the namespace is the "Resource-Priority namespace" not
the "Resource-Priority header namespace". I would prefer to do what RFC
4412 does which is in the IANA section and at the first instance in the
document refer to the full name, and just use "namespace" elsewhere.
2) Change abstract to:
This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol
Resource-Priority namespaces, and places these namespaces in the IANA
register.
3) Section 2:
Change: This MAY change in future efforts.
To: Other namespace definitions in the future could change this.
Reason: Inappropriate usage of RFC 2119 language.
4) RFC 4412 states:
o A namespace may either reference an existing list of priority
values or define a new finite list of priority values in relative
priority order for IANA registration within the sip-parameters
Resource-Priority priority-values registry. New priority-values
SHOULD NOT be added to a previously IANA-registered list
associated with a particular namespace, as this may cause
interoperability problems. Unless otherwise specified, it is
assumed that all priority values confer higher priority than
requests without a priority value.
The multiple namespaces defined in this document all use the same finite
list of priority values. Why do we need multiple new entries within the
Resource-Priority Priority-values registry, rather than just reuse the
same one.
NITS:
1) Change section 1 from
Each will be RFC 4412 defined as preemption
based in nature, and will have the same 9 priority-values.
To
Each will be preemption
in nature, as defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 9
priority-values.
2) Change section 1 From
DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different RPH namespaces
to different units of differing sizes throughout their networks.
Examples of this may be
To
DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different
Resource-Priority namespaces
to different units of differing sizes throughout their networks.
Examples of this can be
Regards
Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:02 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01
>
> (As WG chair)
>
> We working group last called this a few weeks back.
>
> I have been checking the revised version, and it seems to me
> that all the comments have been addressed.
>
> Does anyone else have any issues to raise on this document. I
> am starting to prepare the IESG publication request, and it
> would be helpful to know if more discussion is needed way
> before I finish this.
>
> In the absence of response I will be declaring this document
> done, bar the normal checks I do before the publish request
> in order to get this document into a format for IESG.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
