I will leave James to respond to this as it impacts the draft, but assuming we reach that stage, I will remember this point for the PROTO writeup.
Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip] Resource Priority Header namespaces > > I read over the draft in last call requesting new RPH > namespace assignments. > In and of itself it looks non-objectionable. While I don't > understand the need for that many name spaces, or those > specific values, my first reaction is to say "okay" anyway. > > However, I went and looked at RFC4412, which defines the > header namespace registration. > That RFC calls for a standard track RFC for defining namespaces. > And the text is quite explicit that one should not create a > multiplicity of namespaces, but should try to use existing > spaces first. > > So, unless we want to check RFC4412, it seems that the > request for 32 namespaces in > draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00.txt > really needs more explanation / justification. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
