idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 283. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 294. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 301. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 307. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 7 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == Unrecognized Status in 'Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS)', assuming Proposed Standard (Expected one of 'Standards Track', 'Full Standard', 'Draft Standard', 'Proposed Standard', 'Best Current Practice', 'Informational', 'Experimental', 'Informational', 'Historic'.) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (Oct 21, 2008) is 5666 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 221, but not defined Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SIP Working Group James Polk 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended Status: Standards Track (as PS) Oct 21, 2008 5 Expires: April 21st, 2009 7 IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 8 Resource-Priority Namespaces 9 draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-04.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 24 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 25 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 26 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2009. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 40 Abstract 42 This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 43 Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US 44 Defense Information Systems Agency, and places these namespaces in 45 the IANA registry. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 1.1 Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. New RPH Namespaces Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration . . . . . . . 4 54 3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 6 62 1. Introduction 64 The US Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is rolling out 65 their Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based architecture at this 66 time. This network will require more Resource-Priority 67 namespaces than were defined, and IANA registered, in RFC 4412 68 [RFC4412]. The purpose of this document is to define these 69 additional namespaces. Each will be preemptive in nature, as 70 defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 10 priority-values. 72 DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different 73 Resource-Priority namespaces to differing groups of differing sizes 74 throughout their networks. Examples of this may be 76 - as large as each branch of service (army, navy, air force, 77 marines, coast guard) 79 - some departments within the government (Homeland Security, 80 Commerce, Treasury) 82 - plus have temporary assignments to individual units of varying 83 sizes (from battle groups to patrol groups or platoons) 85 These temporary assignments might be combinations of smaller units 86 involving several branches of service operating as one unit (say, 87 one task force, which is separate than the branch of service), or a 88 single commando unit requiring special treatment for a short period 89 of time, making it appear separate from the branch of service they 90 are from. 92 Providing DISA with a pool of namespaces for fine grained 93 assignment(s) allows them the flexibility they need for their 94 mission requirements. One can imagine due to their sheer size and 95 separation of purpose, they can easily utilize a significant number 96 of namespaces within their networks. This is the reason for the 97 assignment of so many new namespaces, which seems to deviate from 98 guidance in RFC 4412 to have a few namespaces as possible. 100 This document makes no changes to SIP, just adds IANA registered 101 namespaces for its use within the Resource Priority header 102 framework. 104 1.1 Conventions used in this document 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 107 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 108 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 109 in [RFC2119]. 111 2. New SIP Resource-Priority Namespaces Created 113 The following 40 SIP namespaces are created by this document: 115 dsn-000000 drsn-000000 rts-000000 crts-000000 116 dsn-000001 drsn-000001 rts-000001 crts-000001 117 dsn-000002 drsn-000002 rts-000002 crts-000002 118 dsn-000003 drsn-000003 rts-000003 crts-000003 119 dsn-000004 drsn-000004 rts-000004 crts-000004 120 dsn-000005 drsn-000005 rts-000005 crts-000005 121 dsn-000006 drsn-000006 rts-000006 crts-000006 122 dsn-000007 drsn-000007 rts-000007 crts-000007 123 dsn-000008 drsn-000008 rts-000008 crts-000008 124 dsn-000009 drsn-000009 rts-000009 crts-000009 126 Each namespace listed above is wholly different. However, according 127 to the rules within section 8 of RFC 4412, one or more sets can be 128 treated as if the same when configured as an aggregated grouping of 129 namespaces. 131 These aggregates of two or more namespaces, that are to be 132 considered equivalent during treatment, can be a set of any IANA 133 registered namespaces, not just adjacent namespaces. 135 Each namespace listed above will have the same 9 priority-levels: 137 .0 (lowest priority) 138 .1 139 .2 140 .3 141 .4 142 .5 143 .6 144 .7 145 .8 146 .9 (highest priority) 148 According to the rules established in RFC 4412 [RFC4412], 149 priority-values have a relative order for preferential treatment, 150 unless one or more consecutive groups of priority-values are to be 151 considered equivalent (i.e., first-received, first treated). 153 The dash '-' character is just like any other ASCII character within 154 a namespace, and is not to be considered a delimiter in any official 155 way within any namespace here. Other namespace definitions in the 156 future could change this. 158 As stated in Section 9 of RFC 4412 [RFC4412] an IANA registered 159 namespace SHOULD NOT change the number and MUST NOT change the 160 relative priority order, of its assigned priority-values. 162 3. IANA Considerations 164 Abiding by the rules established within RFC 4412 [RFC4412], this is 165 a Standards-Track document registering new namespaces, their 166 associated priority-values and intended algorithms. 168 3.1 IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration 170 Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" registry in the 171 sip-parameters section of IANA, the following table lists the new 172 namespaces registered by this document (NOTE: 'RFCXXXX' is to be 173 replaced by this document's RFC number if this document is published 174 by the RFC-Editor): 176 Intended New warn- New resp. 177 Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference 178 ---------- ------ ------------ --------- --------- --------- 179 dsn-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 180 dsn-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 181 dsn-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 182 dsn-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 183 dsn-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 184 dsn-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 185 dsn-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 186 dsn-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 187 dsn-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 188 dsn-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 190 drsn-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 191 drsn-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 192 drsn-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 193 drsn-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 194 drsn-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 195 drsn-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 196 drsn-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 197 drsn-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 198 drsn-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 199 drsn-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 201 rts-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 202 rts-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 203 rts-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 204 rts-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 205 rts-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 206 rts-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 207 rts-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 208 rts-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 209 rts-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 210 rts-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 212 crts-000000 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 213 crts-000001 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 214 crts-000002 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 215 crts-000003 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 216 crts-000004 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 217 crts-000005 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 218 crts-000006 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 219 crts-000007 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 220 crts-000008 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 221 crts-000009 10 preemption no no [RFCXXXX] 223 3.2 IANA Priority-Value Registrations 225 Within the "Resource-Priority Priority-values" registry in the 226 sip-parameters section of IANA, the list of priority-values for each 227 of the 40 newly created namespaces from section 3.1 of this 228 document, prioritized least to greatest, is registered by the 229 following (to be replicated similar to the following format): 231 Namespace: dsn-000000 232 Reference: RFCXXXX (this document) 233 Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", 234 "6", "7", "8", "9" 236 4. Security Considerations 238 This document has the same Security Considerations as RFC 4412. 240 5. Acknowledgements 242 To Jeff Hewett for his helpful guidance in this effort. Thanks to 243 Janet Gunn, John Rosenberg, Joel Halpern, Michael Giniger, Henning 244 Schulzrinne, Keith Drage and Suresh Krishnan for their comments. 246 6. References 248 6.1 Normative References 250 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource 251 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 252 4411, Feb 2006 254 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 255 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997 257 Author's Address 259 James Polk 260 3913 Treemont Circle 261 Colleyville, Texas 76034 262 USA 264 Phone: +1-817-271-3552 265 Fax: none 266 Email: jmpolk@cisco.com 268 Full Copyright Statement 270 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 272 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 273 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 274 retain all their rights. 276 This document and the information contained herein are provided on 277 an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 278 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 279 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 280 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 281 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 282 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 283 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 285 Intellectual Property 287 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 288 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 289 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described 290 in this document or the extent to which any license under such 291 rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that 292 it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. 293 Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC 294 documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 296 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 297 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 298 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 299 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 300 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 301 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 303 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 304 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 305 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 306 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 307 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 309 Acknowledgment 311 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 312 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).