Subject: Re: [Sip] re: WGLC: resource priority (1)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:16:34 EST

In a message dated 1/15/2004 2:50:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

Please do not confuse the change control of the *registration* with the 
change control of the *normative behavior*.  Only the change control of 
the registration is under the control of the IETF. Obviously if you 
change the normative behavior in a separate document, you need to 
change the registration to point at the changes behavior.

Recall that the IANA registration serves two purposes: 1) to prevent 
namespace conflicts, and 2) to allows implementors to find the 
documents relevant to any namespaces which interest them.

[MAP] That's the whole point I'm trying to get at - to keep the control of 
the "registration" and the control of the "normative behavior" separate. The 
IANA consideration section of this draft, and any "template" that is defined to 
provide information to IANA for the registration, should be limited to what is 
required for the registration. That should not include information about the 
behaviour of other entities that IANA doesn't need to do its job.

In a message dated 1/15/2004 2:50:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

Note that Section 2 of this 
> draft lists 4 treatments, some of which I would not classify as being 
> either "preempt" or "prioritize".

Can you provide an existence proof of a separate type of treatment?

[MAP] I'm reading the word "prioritize" in its literal sense - to put one 
thing in front of another.

One of the preferential treatments that may be applied to a call marked with 
a higher value is to use a higher call acceptance limit. Another is to exempt 
it from controls that may prevent lower valued calls from being carried, just 
as is done today for GETS. I just don't like to use the word "prioritize" to 
describe these types of preferential treatments, whihc have nothing to do with 
putting one call in front of another.

There can be other types of "preferential treatment" besides just "preempt" 
and "prioritize", so the template used to register the RP-header with IANA 
could not be limited to only those two choices. It is not possible to say what all 
the methods might be in the future. Besides, there is no reason for the IANA 
registration to include such information. IANA can not use this information.

The template should be only the following:

Namespace:
Description:
Organization Responsible for Change Control of this Namespace:
Priority values (ordered from least priority to greatest priority):
Default priority:

Mike Pierce

_______________________________________________
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