Mainly editorial comments. It is a little confusing that section 2.1 refers to "dsn-usarmy dsn-usnavy dsn-usairforce dsn-usmarines"
but those are not among the new namespaces being created in this document. It would be clearer if you used the actual proposed namespaces (e.g., dsn-000000 dsn-000010 dsn-000020 dsn-000030) in the discussion of section 2.1. When I was explaining the earlier version to someone, we got off on an extended tangent about whether or not DISA "would separate army calls from navy calls". If the example used the numerical "sub domains", that confusion would be avoided. If I am understanding correctly, there is (or a least may be) a one-to-one correspondence between the "domain-subdomain" as defined here, and the "domain-subdomain" defined in draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00. draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00 mentions this relationship. Would it make sense to mention the relationship here as well? Janet "James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/13/2007 10:26:54 PM: > SIP WG > > I've updated this ID for your consideration. > > I've cleaned up the number of new namespaces, as well as the number > of priority-values per namespace. > > This is a very simple IANA registration document with a very small > update to RFC 4412 included, which is adding a delimiter in RPH > namespaces to enable sub-namespaces. > > The requirement for this is old from a very large customer, and has > already been codified by most (all?) willing vendors of this customer. > > Comments are appreciated > > James > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt > > > > Title : New Session Initiation Protocol > > Resource-Priority Header Namespaces for the Defense Information > Systems Agency > > Author(s) : J. Polk > > Filename : draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt > > Pages : 12 > > Date : 2007-7-13 > > > >This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol > > Resource-Priority header namespaces, to be IANA registered. This > > document intends to update RFC 4412, as a Proposed Standard document > > if published by the RFC-Editor. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
