RFC 6878 PROPOSED STANDARD SIP · IANA · REGISTRY

IANA Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Priority" Header Field

An IANA registry for the values of SIP's Priority header field.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
March 2013
AUTHORS
A.B. Roach
STREAM
IETF
BUILDS ON
RFC 3261 — SIP
INITIAL REGISTRY VALUES
4
REGISTRATION POLICY
IETF Review
DOI
10.17487/RFC6878
ERRATA
Reported errata

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
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

Abstract

   This 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.

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a new IANA registry to keep track of the values
   defined for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "Priority" header
   field.  This header field was defined in [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.

2.  IANA Considerations

   This document adds a new sub-registry, "Priority Header Field
   Values", to the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters"
   registry page.  Its format and initial values are as shown in the
   following table:

                        +------------+-----------+
                        | Priority   | Reference |
                        +------------+-----------+
                        | non-urgent | 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.

3.  Security Considerations

   This document does not have any impact on the security of the SIP
   protocol.  Its purpose is purely administrative in nature.

4.  References

4.1.  Normative References

   [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.

4.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4412]  Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
              Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 4412, February 2006.

Author's Address

   Adam Roach
   Mozilla
   Dallas, TX
   US

   EMail: adam@nostrum.com

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMThe SIP Priority header allowed new values, but no registry had been established to record them.
MECHANISMThe RFC creates a Priority Header Field Values sub-registry with four initial values and an IETF Review registration policy.
WHY IT MATTERSRFC 6878 updates RFC 3261 by providing a controlled way to register SIP Priority values.

§1Why the Registry Was Needed

The SIP Priority header field was defined in RFC 3261 in a way that allowed values beyond those originally specified. However, no registry had been set up to keep track of additional values.

RFC 6878 updates RFC 3261 by defining a registry for values of that header field.

SIP's Priority header could have new values, but there was no official list of them. This RFC creates that list.

§2Initial Values and Registration Policy

The new sub-registry, named Priority Header Field Values, is part of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry page. Its initial values are non-urgent, normal, urgent, and emergency, each referenced to RFC 3261.

New values require IETF Review because their semantics could have architectural impact. The RFC advises people considering a new value to consider whether SIP Resource-Priority or another protocol is more appropriate.

The registry starts with four values: non-urgent, normal, urgent, and emergency. Adding another value needs IETF Review because it could affect how SIP is designed.

§3Security Considerations

The RFC states that this document has no impact on SIP security. Its purpose is administrative: it creates a registry and defines the policy for adding values.

This document organizes the header's values. The RFC says it does not affect SIP security.

§4References