Network Working Group J. Polk
Request for Comments: 5478 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track March 2009
Network Working Group J. Polk
Request for Comments: 5478 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track March 2009
IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority Namespaces
新会话启动协议（SIP）资源优先级名称空间的IANA注册
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2009 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托在本文件出版之日生效的与IETF文件有关的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, 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, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
Abstract
摘要
This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US Defense Information Systems Agency, and places these namespaces in the IANA registry.
本文档创建了额外的会话启动协议（SIP）资源优先级名称空间，以满足美国国防信息系统局的要求，并将这些名称空间放置在IANA注册表中。
Table of Contents
目录
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 ............................................6
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 ............................................6
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 preemptive in nature, as defined in RFC 4412, and will have the same 10 priority-values.
美国国防信息系统局（DISA）目前正在推出基于会话启动协议（SIP）的体系结构。该网络将需要比RFC 4412[RFC4412]中定义和注册的IANA更多的资源优先级名称空间。本文档的目的是定义这些附加名称空间。根据RFC 4412中的定义，每一个都具有抢占性质，并且具有相同的10个优先级值。
DISA has a requirement to be able to assign different Resource-Priority namespaces to differing groups of differing sizes throughout their networks. Examples of this may be
DISA要求能够在其网络中为不同大小的不同组分配不同的资源优先级名称空间。这方面的例子可能是
- namespaces as large as each branch of service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard)
- 与每个服务分支（陆军、海军、空军、海军陆战队、海岸警卫队）一样大的名称空间
- namespaces for some departments within the government (for example, Homeland Security)
- 政府内部某些部门的名称空间（例如，国土安全部）
- namespaces that are temporary assignments to individual units of varying sizes (from battle groups to patrol groups or platoons)
- 名称空间，临时分配给不同规模的单个单位（从战斗群到巡逻群或排）
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.
这些临时任务可能是涉及多个军种的小型部队的组合，作为一个单位运作（例如，一个特遣部队，与军种分开），或一个需要短期特殊处理的突击队部队，使其看起来与他们所属的军种分开。
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
为DISA提供用于细粒度分配的名称空间池，使其能够灵活地满足任务需求。可以想象，由于它们的规模和用途的分离，它们可以轻松地在网络中利用大量名称空间。这就是为什么会这样
assignment of so many new namespaces, which seems to deviate from guidance in RFC 4412 to have as few namespaces as possible.
分配如此多的新名称空间，这似乎偏离了RFC4412中的指导，即拥有尽可能少的名称空间。
This document makes no changes to SIP, it just adds IANA-registered namespaces for SIP's use within the Resource-Priority header framework.
本文档对SIP没有任何更改，只是添加了IANA注册的名称空间，供SIP在资源优先级头框架内使用。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The following 40 SIP namespaces are created by this document:
本文档创建了以下40个SIP名称空间：
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-000009
dsn-000000 drsn-000000 rts-000000 crts-000000 dsn-000001 drsn-000001 rts-000001 crts-000001 dsn-000002 drsn-000002 rts-000002 dsn-000003 drsn-000003 rts-000003 crts-000003 dsn-000004 drsn-000004 dsn-000005 drsn-000005 drsn-000006 drsn-000006 rts-000006 dsn-000007 drsnrts-000007 CRT-000007 dsn-000008 drsn-000008 rts-000008 CRT-000008 dsn-000009 drsn-000009 rts-000009 CRT-000009
Each namespace listed above is wholly different. However, according to the rules within Section 8 of RFC 4412, one or more sets can be treated as if they are the same when they are configured as an aggregated grouping of namespaces.
上面列出的每个名称空间都是完全不同的。然而，根据RFC 4412第8节中的规则，当一个或多个集合被配置为名称空间的聚合分组时，可以将它们视为相同的集合。
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 (i.e., consecutive) namespaces.
这些由两个或多个名称空间组成的聚合在处理过程中被认为是等效的，可以是任何IANA注册的名称空间的集合，而不仅仅是相邻（即连续）的名称空间。
Each namespace listed above will have the same 10 priority levels:
上面列出的每个命名空间将具有相同的10个优先级：
.0 (lowest priority) .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 (highest priority)
.0（最低优先级）.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9（最高优先级）
According to the rules established in RFC 4412 [RFC4412], 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).
根据RFC 4412[RFC4412]中建立的规则，优先级值具有优先处理的相对顺序，除非一组或多组连续优先级值被视为等效（即，第一次接收，第一次处理）。
The dash character ('-') is just like any other ASCII character within a namespace, 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.
破折号字符（'-'）与名称空间中的任何其他ASCII字符一样，在这里，在任何名称空间中都不能以任何正式方式将其视为分隔符。将来的其他命名空间定义可能会改变这一点。
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.
如RFC 4412[RFC4412]第9节所述，IANA注册的命名空间不应更改其分配的优先级值的编号，也不得更改其相对优先级顺序。
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.
遵循RFC 4412[RFC4412]中建立的规则，这是一个标准跟踪文档，用于注册新名称空间、其相关优先级值和预期算法。
Within the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" registry in the sip-parameters section of IANA, the following table lists the new namespaces registered by this document.
在IANA的sip参数部分的“资源优先级名称空间”注册表中，下表列出了本文档注册的新名称空间。
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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, prioritized least to greatest, is registered by the following (replicated similar to the following format):
在IANA sip参数部分的“资源优先级值”注册表中，本文件第3.1节中40个新创建名称空间的优先级值列表（按优先级从低到高排列）通过以下方式注册（复制类似于以下格式）：
Namespace: dsn-000000 Reference: RFC5478 (this document) Priority-Values (least to greatest): "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9"
名称空间：dsn-000000参考：RFC5478（本文档）优先级值（从最小到最大）：“0”、“1”、“2”、“3”、“4”、“5”、“6”、“7”、“8”、“9”
This document has the same Security Considerations as RFC 4412.
本文件与RFC 4412具有相同的安全注意事项。
To Jeff Hewett for his helpful guidance in this effort. Thanks to Janet Gunn, John Rosenberg, Joel Halpern, Michael Giniger, Henning Schulzrinne, Keith Drage, and Suresh Krishnan for their comments.
感谢杰夫·休伊特在这项工作中提供的有益指导。感谢珍妮特·冈恩、约翰·罗森博格、乔尔·哈尔彭、迈克尔·吉尼格、亨宁·舒尔兹林内、基思·德拉格和苏雷什·克里希南的评论。
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4412, February 2006.
[RFC4412]Schulzrinne，H.和J.Polk，“会话启动协议（SIP）的通信资源优先级”，RFC 4412，2006年2月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
Author's Address
作者地址
James Polk 3913 Treemont Circle Colleyville, Texas 76034 USA
詹姆斯·波尔克3913美国得克萨斯州科利维尔市特雷蒙特环城76034
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
EMail: jmpolk@cisco.com
Phone: +1-817-271-3552
EMail: jmpolk@cisco.com