RFC 5478
IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces
RFC 5478: IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces 💖
okay so first, the basics 🎀
- Stream: Network Working Group
- Author: J. Polk, Cisco Systems
- Category: Standards Track
- Date: March 2009
- Obsoletes/Updates: the title block doesn't list anything this one obsoletes or updates
Status of This Memo 📜
this doc is an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and it's asking for discussion and suggestions for improvements 🙌 for the standardization state and status of this protocol, check the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1). distribution of this memo is unlimited ✨
Copyright Notice 🔒
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
this doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents, as in effect on the date of publication. please read those carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document: http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info
this doc may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. the people controlling the copyright in some of that material may not have given the IETF Trust permission to allow modifications outside the IETF Standards Process. so unless you get an adequate license from those copyright holders, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process. the exceptions are formatting it for publication as an RFC or translating it into languages other than English 🌸
Abstract 🦋
this doc creates extra Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US Defense Information Systems Agency, and it puts these namespaces in the IANA registry 💅
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. New SIP Resource-Priority Namespaces Created ....................3
3. IANA Considerations .............................................4
3.1. IANA Resource-Priority Namespace Registration ..............4
3.2. IANA Priority-Value Registrations ..........................6
4. Security Considerations .........................................6
5. Acknowledgments .................................................6
6. Normative References ............................................61. Introduction ✨
the US Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is rolling out their Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based architecture right now 🚀 this network is going to need more Resource-Priority namespaces than were defined and IANA registered in RFC 4412 [RFC4412]. so the purpose of this doc is to define these additional namespaces. each one is going to be preemptive in nature, as defined in RFC 4412, and each will have the same 10 priority-values 💖
DISA needs to be able to assign different Resource-Priority namespaces to differing groups of differing sizes across their networks. examples of this may be:
- namespaces as large as each branch of service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard)
- namespaces for some departments within the government (for example, Homeland Security)
- namespaces that are 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 that needs special treatment for a short period of time, making it appear separate from the branch of service they are from 🫶
giving DISA a pool of namespaces for fine-grained assignment(s) gives them the flexibility they need for their mission requirements 👑 one can imagine that, due to their sheer size and separation of purpose, they can easily use a significant number of namespaces within their networks. this is the reason for assigning so many new namespaces, which seems to go against the guidance in RFC 4412 to have as few namespaces as possible 🙈
this document makes no changes to SIP. it just adds IANA-registered namespaces for SIP's use within the Resource-Priority header framework 🌈
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 40 SIP namespaces are created by this doc:
dsn-000000 drsn-000000 rts-000000 crts-000000
dsn-000001 drsn-000001 rts-000001 crts-000001
dsn-000002 drsn-000002 rts-000002 crts-000002
dsn-000003 drsn-000003 rts-000003 crts-000003
dsn-000004 drsn-000004 rts-000004 crts-000004
dsn-000005 drsn-000005 rts-000005 crts-000005
dsn-000006 drsn-000006 rts-000006 crts-000006
dsn-000007 drsn-000007 rts-000007 crts-000007
dsn-000008 drsn-000008 rts-000008 crts-000008
dsn-000009 drsn-000009 rts-000009 crts-000009each namespace in that list is totally different 💅 BUT, according to the rules in Section 8 of RFC 4412, one or more sets can be treated as if they're the same when they're configured as an aggregated grouping of namespaces 🫶
these aggregates of two or more namespaces, which are to be considered equivalent during treatment, can be any IANA registered namespaces, not just adjacent (i.e., consecutive) ones ✨
each namespace listed above will have the same 10 priority levels:
.0 (lowest priority)
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9 (highest priority)per the rules RFC 4412 [RFC4412] set up, 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) 🍓
the dash character ('-') is just like any other ASCII character within a namespace. it 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. this one's a big deal, bestie 🚨
3. IANA Considerations 🌸
abiding by the rules in 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 doc:
Intended New warn- New resp.
Namespace Levels Algorithm code code Reference
---------- ------ ------------ --------- --------- ---------
dsn-000000 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000001 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000002 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000003 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000004 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000005 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000006 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000007 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000008 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
dsn-000009 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000000 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000001 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000002 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000003 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000004 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000005 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000006 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000007 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000008 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
drsn-000009 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000000 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000001 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000002 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000003 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000004 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000005 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000006 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000007 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000008 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
rts-000009 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000000 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000001 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000002 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000003 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000004 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000005 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000006 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000007 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000008 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]
crts-000009 10 preemption no no [RFC5478]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 of the 40 newly created namespaces from Section 3.1 of this document, ordered least to greatest, is registered by the following (replicated similar to the following format):
Namespace: dsn-000000
Reference: RFC5478 (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. Acknowledgments 💖
big thank you to Jeff Hewett for his helpful guidance in this effort 🫶 and thanks to Janet Gunn, John Rosenberg, Joel Halpern, Michael Giniger, Henning Schulzrinne, Keith Drage, and Suresh Krishnan for their comments ✨
6. Normative References 📖
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4412, February 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.Author's Address 🧚
James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
USA
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
EMail: jmpolk@cisco.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc5478 2009-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms