< draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt		draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-04.txt >
	SIP Working Group James Polk		SIP Working Group James Polk
	Internet-Draft Cisco Systems		Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
	Expires: Sept 10, 2008 March 10, 2008		Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS) Oct 21, 2008
	Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS)		Expires: April 21st, 2009
	IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)		IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
	Resource-Priority Namespaces		Resource-Priority Namespaces
	draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt		draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-04.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		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		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.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents		months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
	at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as		at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
	reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on Sept 10, 2008.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2009.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)		This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
	Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US		Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US
	Defense Information Systems Agency, and places these namespaces in		Defense Information Systems Agency, and places these namespaces in
	the IANA registry.		the IANA registry.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1 Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1 Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. New RPH Namespaces Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. New RPH Namespaces Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . . 5		3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . . 4
	3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11		Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The US Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is rolling out		The US Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is rolling out
	their Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based architecture at this		their Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based architecture at this
	time. This network will require more Resource-Priority		time. This network will require more Resource-Priority
	namespaces than were defined, and IANA registered, in RFC 4412		namespaces than were defined, and IANA registered, in RFC 4412
	[RFC4412]. The purpose of this document is to define these		[RFC4412]. The purpose of this document is to define these
	additional namespaces. Each will be preemption in nature, as		additional namespaces. Each will be preemptive in nature, as
	defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 9 priority-values.		defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 10 priority-values.
	DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different		DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different
	Resource-Priority namespaces to different units of differing sizes		Resource-Priority namespaces to differing groups of differing sizes
	throughout their networks. Examples of this may be		throughout their networks. Examples of this may be
	- as large as each branch of service (army, navy, air force,		- as large as each branch of service (army, navy, air force,
	marines, coast guard)		marines, coast guard)
	- some departments within the government (Homeland Security,		- some departments within the government (Homeland Security,
	Commerce, Treasury)		Commerce, Treasury)
	- plus have temporary assignments to individual units of varying		- plus have temporary assignments to individual units of varying
	sizes (from battle groups to patrol groups or platoons)		sizes (from battle groups to patrol groups or platoons)
	skipping to change at page 3, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 7 ¶
	Providing DISA with a pool of namespaces for fine grained		Providing DISA with a pool of namespaces for fine grained
	assignment(s) allows them the flexibility they need for their		assignment(s) allows them the flexibility they need for their
	mission requirements. One can imagine due to their sheer size and		mission requirements. One can imagine due to their sheer size and
	separation of purpose, they can easily utilize a significant number		separation of purpose, they can easily utilize a significant number
	of namespaces within their networks. This is the reason for the		of namespaces within their networks. This is the reason for the
	assignment of so many new namespaces, which seems to deviate from		assignment of so many new namespaces, which seems to deviate from
	guidance in RFC 4412 to have a few namespaces as possible.		guidance in RFC 4412 to have a few namespaces as possible.
	This document makes no changes to SIP, just adds IANA registered		This document makes no changes to SIP, just adds IANA registered
	namespaces for its use.		namespaces for its use within the Resource Priority header
			framework.
	1.1 Conventions used in this document		1.1 Conventions used in this document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
	NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
	in [RFC2119].		in [RFC2119].
	2. New SIP Resource-Priority Namespaces Created		2. New SIP Resource-Priority Namespaces Created
	The following 50 SIP namespaces are created by this document:		The following 40 SIP namespaces are created by this document:
	dsn-000000 drsn-000010 rts-000020 crts-000000		dsn-000000 drsn-000000 rts-000000 crts-000000
	dsn-000001 drsn-000011 rts-000021 crts-000001		dsn-000001 drsn-000001 rts-000001 crts-000001
	dsn-000002 drsn-000012 rts-000022 crts-000002		dsn-000002 drsn-000002 rts-000002 crts-000002
	dsn-000003 drsn-000013 rts-000023 crts-000003		dsn-000003 drsn-000003 rts-000003 crts-000003
	dsn-000004 drsn-000014 rts-000024 crts-000004		dsn-000004 drsn-000004 rts-000004 crts-000004
	dsn-000005 drsn-000015 rts-000025 crts-000005		dsn-000005 drsn-000005 rts-000005 crts-000005
	dsn-000006 drsn-000016 rts-000026 crts-000006		dsn-000006 drsn-000006 rts-000006 crts-000006
	dsn-000007 drsn-000017 rts-000027 crts-000007		dsn-000007 drsn-000007 rts-000007 crts-000007
	dsn-000008 drsn-000018 rts-000028 crts-000008		dsn-000008 drsn-000008 rts-000008 crts-000008
	dsn-000009 drsn-000019 rts-000029 crts-000009		dsn-000009 drsn-000009 rts-000009 crts-000009
	Each namespace listed above is wholly different. However, according		Each namespace listed above is wholly different. However, according
	to the rules of section 8 within RFC 4412, one or more sets can be		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		treated as if the same when configured as an aggregated grouping of
	namespaces.		namespaces.
	These aggregates of two or more namespaces, that are to be		These aggregates of two or more namespaces, that are to be
	considered equivalent during treatment, can be a set of any IANA		considered equivalent during treatment, can be a set of any IANA
	registered namespaces, not just adjacent namespaces.		registered namespaces, not just adjacent namespaces.
	Each namespace listed above will have the same 9 priority-levels:		Each namespace listed above will have the same 9 priority-levels:
	.0 (lowest priority)		.0 (lowest priority)
	skipping to change at page 4, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 8 ¶
	.6		.6
	.7		.7
	.8		.8
	.9 (highest priority)		.9 (highest priority)
	According to the rules established in RFC 4412 [RFC4412],		According to the rules established in RFC 4412 [RFC4412],
	priority-values have a relative order for preferential treatment,		priority-values have a relative order for preferential treatment,
	unless one or more consecutive groups of priority-values are to be		unless one or more consecutive groups of priority-values are to be
	considered equivalent (i.e., first-received, first treated).		considered equivalent (i.e., first-received, first treated).
	Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority		The dash '-' character is just like any other ASCII character within
	header value:		a namespace, and is not to be considered a delimiter in any official
			way within any namespace here. Other namespace definitions in the
	dsn-000001.8		future could change this.
	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		As stated in Section 9 of RFC 4412 [RFC4412] an IANA registered
	namespace SHOULD NOT change the number, and MUST NOT change the		namespace SHOULD NOT change the number and MUST NOT change the
	relative priority order, of its assigned priority-values.		relative priority order, of its assigned priority-values.
	3. IANA Considerations		3. IANA Considerations
	Abiding by the rules established within RFC 4412 [RFC4412], this is		Abiding by the rules established within RFC 4412 [RFC4412], this is
	a Standards-Track document registering new namespaces, their		a Standards-Track document registering new namespaces, their
	associated priority-values and intended algorithms.		associated priority-values and intended algorithms.
	3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration		3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration
	skipping to change at page 6, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 49 ¶
	"6", "7", "8", "9"		"6", "7", "8", "9"
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	This document has the same Security Considerations as RFC 4412.		This document has the same Security Considerations as RFC 4412.
	5. Acknowledgements		5. Acknowledgements
	To Jeff Hewett for his helpful guidance in this effort. Thanks to		To Jeff Hewett for his helpful guidance in this effort. Thanks to
	Janet Gunn, John Rosenberg, Joel Halpern, Michael Giniger, Henning		Janet Gunn, John Rosenberg, Joel Halpern, Michael Giniger, Henning
	Schulzrinne and Keith Drage for their comments.		Schulzrinne, Keith Drage and Suresh Krishnan for their comments.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1 Normative References		6.1 Normative References
	[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource		[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
	Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC		Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
	4411, Feb 2006		4411, Feb 2006
	[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	52 lines changed or deleted		36 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/