SIP Working Group James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS) Oct 21, 2008
Expires: April 21st, 2009
IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Resource-Priority Namespaces
draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-04.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US
Defense Information Systems Agency, and places these namespaces in
the IANA registry.
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Oct 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. New RPH Namespaces Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . . 4
3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The US Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is rolling out
their Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based architecture at this
time. This network will require more Resource-Priority
namespaces than were defined, and IANA registered, in RFC 4412
[RFC4412]. The purpose of this document is to define these
additional namespaces. Each will be preemptive in nature, as
defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 10 priority-values.
DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different
Resource-Priority namespaces to differing groups of differing sizes
throughout their networks. Examples of this may be
- as large as each branch of service (army, navy, air force,
marines, coast guard)
- some departments within the government (Homeland Security,
Commerce, Treasury)
- plus have temporary assignments to individual units of varying
sizes (from battle groups to patrol groups or platoons)
These temporary assignments might be combinations of smaller units
involving several branches of service operating as one unit (say,
one task force, which is separate than the branch of service), or a
single commando unit requiring special treatment for a short period
of time, making it appear separate from the branch of service they
are from.
Providing DISA with a pool of namespaces for fine grained
assignment(s) allows them the flexibility they need for their
mission requirements. One can imagine due to their sheer size and
separation of purpose, they can easily utilize a significant number
of namespaces within their networks. This is the reason for the
assignment of so many new namespaces, which seems to deviate from
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Oct 2008
guidance in RFC 4412 to have a few namespaces as possible.
This document makes no changes to SIP, just adds IANA registered
namespaces for its use within the Resource Priority header
framework.
1.1 Conventions used in this document
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].
2. New SIP Resource-Priority Namespaces Created
The following 40 SIP namespaces are created by this document:
dsn-000000 drsn-000000 rts-000000 crts-000000
dsn-000001 drsn-000001 rts-000001 crts-000001
dsn-000002 drsn-000002 rts-000002 crts-000002
dsn-000003 drsn-000003 rts-000003 crts-000003
dsn-000004 drsn-000004 rts-000004 crts-000004
dsn-000005 drsn-000005 rts-000005 crts-000005
dsn-000006 drsn-000006 rts-000006 crts-000006
dsn-000007 drsn-000007 rts-000007 crts-000007
dsn-000008 drsn-000008 rts-000008 crts-000008
dsn-000009 drsn-000009 rts-000009 crts-000009
Each namespace listed above is wholly different. However, according
to the rules within section 8 of RFC 4412, one or more sets can be
treated as if the same when configured as an aggregated grouping of
namespaces.
These aggregates of two or more namespaces, that are to be
considered equivalent during treatment, can be a set of any IANA
registered namespaces, not just adjacent namespaces.
Each namespace listed above will have the same 9 priority-levels:
.0 (lowest priority)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9 (highest priority)
According to the rules established in RFC 4412 [RFC4412],
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Oct 2008
priority-values have a relative order for preferential treatment,
unless one or more consecutive groups of priority-values are to be
considered equivalent (i.e., first-received, first treated).
The dash '-' character is just like any other ASCII character within
a namespace, and is not to be considered a delimiter in any official
way within any namespace here. Other namespace definitions in the
future could change this.
As stated in Section 9 of RFC 4412 [RFC4412] an IANA registered
namespace SHOULD NOT change the number and MUST NOT change the
relative priority order, of its assigned priority-values.
3. IANA Considerations
Abiding by the rules established within RFC 4412 [RFC4412], this is
a Standards-Track document registering new namespaces, their
associated priority-values and intended algorithms.
3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration
Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" registry in the
sip-parameters section of IANA, the following table lists the new
namespaces registered by this document (NOTE: 'RFCXXXX' is to be
replaced by this document's RFC number if this document is published
by the RFC-Editor):
Intended New warn- New resp.
Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference
---------- ------ ------------ --------- --------- ---------
dsn-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
dsn-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
drsn-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Oct 2008
drsn-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
rts-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
crts-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX]
3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations
Within the "Resource-Priority Priority-values" registry in the
sip-parameters section of IANA, the list of priority-values for each
of the 40 newly created namespaces from section 3.1 of this
document, prioritized least to greatest, is registered by the
following (to be replicated similar to the following format):
Namespace: dsn-000000
Reference: RFCXXXX (this document)
Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5",
"6", "7", "8", "9"
4. Security Considerations
This document has the same Security Considerations as RFC 4412.
5. Acknowledgements
To Jeff Hewett for his helpful guidance in this effort. Thanks to
Janet Gunn, John Rosenberg, Joel Halpern, Michael Giniger, Henning
Schulzrinne, Keith Drage and Suresh Krishnan for their comments.
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Oct 2008
6. References
6.1 Normative References
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4411, Feb 2006
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
Author's Address
James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
USA
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
Fax: none
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Oct 2008
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Polk Expires April 21, 2009 [Page 7]