SIP Working Group James Polk Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Expires: Aug 21, 2008 February 21, 2008 Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS) IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-02.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 August 21, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol Resource-Priority namespaces, and places these namespaces in the IANA register. Polk Expires Aug 21, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Feb 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 . . . . . . . 5 3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11 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 preemption in nature, as defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 9 priority-values. DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different Resource-Priority namespaces to different units 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 Aug 21, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Feb 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. 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 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 Each namespace listed above is wholly different. However, according to the rules of section 8 within 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 Aug 21, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Feb 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). 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, unless the namespaces dsn-000001 and dsn-000010 are configured as equivalent namespaces (according to section 8 of RFC 4412). The dash '-' character is just like any other character, 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): Polk Expires Aug 21, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Feb 2008 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] 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 Polk Expires Aug 21, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Feb 2008 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 and Keith Drage for their comments. 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 Polk Expires Aug 21, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft New SIP RPH Namespaces for DISA Feb 2008 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. 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 Aug 21, 2008 [Page 7]