[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5478

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

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).


   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
   "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

   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)
      .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:


   for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a
   message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value:


   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

   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

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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Polk                      Expires Aug 21, 2008                 [Page 7]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/