Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A.B. Roach Request for Comments: 6878 Mozilla Updates: 3261 March 2013 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 IANA Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Priority" Header Field
AbstractThis document defines a new IANA registry to keep track of the values defined for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Priority" header field. It updates RFC 3261. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6878. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
RFC3261], Section 20.26. It was clearly specified in a way that allows for the creation of new values beyond those originally specified; however, no registry has been established for it. RFC 3261 | | normal | RFC 3261 | | urgent | RFC 3261 | | emergency | RFC 3261 | +------------+-----------+ The policy for registration of values in this registry is "IETF Review" as that term is defined by [RFC5226]. This policy was chosen over lighter-weight policies due the potential architectural impact of the semantics associated with new values. Efforts contemplating adding a Priority value should consider whether the SIP Resource- Priority [RFC4412] or even a different protocol would be more appropriate for achieving their requirements.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4412, February 2006.