Requirements for SIP Resource Priority Header in SIP Responses
draft-gunn-sip-req-for-rph-in-responses-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Janet Gunn , Tim Dwight , Martin Dolly | ||
| Last updated | 2007-11-10 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource Priority Header (RPH), in its current form, is ignored in SIP responses. This was a design choice during RFC 4412's development. This is now considered a bad design choice in certain scenarios. The Internet Draft "Allowing SIP Resource Priority Header in SIP Responses" (draft-polk-sip-rph-in-responses-00) describes a modification to RFC4412 to permit RPH in responses. This document describes one of the requirements associated with systems using RPH, that could be satisfied by the modification of RFC 4412 to permit RPH on responses, and is not easily met by other methods. This ID provides additional motivation for SIP RPH in Responses. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Authors
Janet Gunn
Tim Dwight
Martin Dolly
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)