IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces
RFC 5478

[Ballot comment]
I can accept the introductory statement:

  "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"

but I must quibble with the second example:

  - some departments within the government (Homeland Security,
    Commerce, Treasury)

Since when were Commerce and Treasury part of DISA's networks?

[Ballot comment]
The following 50 SIP namespaces are created by this document:

    dsn-000000      drsn-000010      rts-000020      crts-000000 
    dsn-000001      drsn-000011      rts-000021      crts-000001 
    dsn-000002      drsn-000012      rts-000022      crts-000002
    dsn-000003      drsn-000013      rts-000023      crts-000003
    dsn-000004      drsn-000014      rts-000024      crts-000004
    dsn-000005      drsn-000015      rts-000025      crts-000005
    dsn-000006      drsn-000016      rts-000026      crts-000006
    dsn-000007      drsn-000017      rts-000027      crts-000007
    dsn-000008      drsn-000018      rts-000028      crts-000008
    dsn-000009      drsn-000019      rts-000029      crts-000009

  The example used in the second half of section 2 makes use of
  dsn-000010, which is not defined in the list.  Please use a
  defined namespace in this discussion.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review on 10 Oct 2008 by Suresh Krishnan raised a concern
  that was labelled "major."  This concern deserves a respons, but it
  has not received one.  Suresh says that this draft assumes some kind
  of ordering requirement between namespaces.  Suresh is concerned with
  this portion of the text:
  >
  > Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority
  > header value:
  >
  >    dsn-000001.8
  >
  > for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a
  > message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value:
  >
  >    dsn-000010.0
  >
  > because they are two difference namespaces ...
  >
  Suresh asks you to consider an RP actor that supports both the
  namespaces, dsn-000001 and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered
  list which contains:

    dsn-000001.9
    dsn-000001.8
    dsn-000010.9
    ...
    dsn-000010.0

  and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of
  RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior if
  dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over dsn-000010.0?

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1 (Section 3.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

Intended New warn- New resp.
Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference
---------- ------ ------------ --------- --------- ---------
dsn-000000 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000001 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000002 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000003 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000004 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000005 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000006 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000007 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000008 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
dsn-000009 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]

drsn-000000 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000001 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000002 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000003 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000004 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000005 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000006 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000007 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000008 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
drsn-000009 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]

rts-000000 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000001 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000002 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000003 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000004 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000005 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000006 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000007 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000008 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
rts-000009 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]

crts-000000 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000001 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000002 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000003 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000004 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000005 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000006 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000007 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000008 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
crts-000009 10 preemption no no
[RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]


Action 2 (Section 3.2):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment
in the "Resource-Priority Priority-values" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

Namespace: dsn-000000
Reference: [RFC-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03]
Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5",
"6", "7", "8", "9"


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-
namespaces-03.txt: " IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-
Priority Header Namespaces"

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Keith Drage

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

Document history:

- draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 was submitted 26th February 2007 and expired
26th August 2007.
- draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01 was submitted 9th July 2007 and expired 9th
January 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 was submitted 16th October 2007 and expired
16th April 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt was submitted 19th November 2007 and
expired 17th May 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-02.txt was submitted 21st February 2008 and
expires 21st August 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt was submitted 10th March 2008 and
expires 10th September 2008.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 on 31st October
2007 with comments requested by 14th November 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: Janet Gunn, Joel Halpern, John
Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Hannes Tschofenig, Dean Willis. During the course of the
work comments have also been made by: Janet Gunn, Dale Worley.

The main reason for the document is to create the IANA namespaces, but in the process of
doing this it also requires one very small update to RFC 4412 in order to create the
OPTIONAL delimiter, which would be opaque to implementers otherwise, and potentially
causing implementations to not process the header (therefore message) correctly.

One of the issues in the WGLC was the number of namespaces generated, which apparently
contravenes RFC 4412 which essentially says that one should reuse existing namespaces if
they are applicable, rather than going away and generating lots of new ones. There is
text in section 1 of the document justifying this large allocation.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

The document has received review from a number of people whose interests lie in this
particular field, in addition to the normal WG responses.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

The document shepherd has no concerns with this document.

There have been no IPR disclosures on this document.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

The document addresses a limited part of the SIP community, but is of significant
interest in that part of the community. Within that limited community, there is strong
consensus behind the document.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

None indicated.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it is believed
that the document is conformant with those guidelines.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.08.10 report no NITS found except:

  == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
    feeds but 7 pages

which is a common fault which can be resolved readily during publication.


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document contains only normative references. These references are both standards
track documents, are published and have been verified to be normative references.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The main purpose of this document is to create additional entries in an existing IANA
registry. The registry additions are clearly identified. The registry requirements for
this existing registry is standards track required, which this document is.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

The document contains no material written in a formal language, and as such there are no
validation requirements.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'

Technical summary.

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.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document.

Document Quality

The document has received review by experts in the field as well as members of the SIP
working group.

Personnel

The document shepherd for this document was Keith Drage. The responsible Area Director
was Cullen Jennings. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are .