[BLISS] more comments on the CC draft

<Martin.Huelsemann@telekom.de> Thu, 31 March 2011 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Huelsemann@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E991A3A6A34 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvbWytoxnkCo for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B73B3A67FC for <bliss@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from he101251.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.92.154]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Mar 2011 17:04:57 +0200
Received: from HE111543.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.217]) by HE101251.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::e428:2144:dcc5:bcce%15]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:04:57 +0200
From: <Martin.Huelsemann@telekom.de>
To: <bliss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:04:56 +0200
Thread-Topic: more comments on the CC draft
Thread-Index: AcvvtP8u4HqlfMucRyGWDU/f1cRubA==
Message-ID: <9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020113D8897CC1@HE111543.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020113D8897CC1HE111543eme_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: j.dave.smith@siemens-enterprise.com, R.Jesske@telekom.de
Subject: [BLISS] more comments on the CC draft
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:03:25 -0000

Dear colleagues,

during the last WGLC I again received a lot of comments from Dave for editorials and spelling corrections, thanks again for checking, my apologies for not having detected them myself.

Besides the editorials, Dave commented that the procedures are based very much on the assumption of a underlying network architecture where there is a clear seperation between the UA on the user device and the CC agent/monitor which is located in the network. Dave proposed to better consider the case where the CC agent/monitor is colocated with the UA on the user device.
An example is a simple UA uses CC via a AS in the network, and when this UA is not available for CC recall, we said that the CC agent SHALL suspend the CC request. But the suspension policy of a more sophisticated agent of a CC App on a device could be different, therefore it was changed to 'SHOULD be suspended'. There are some other changes in this direction. There are no syntax changes.

Even though they were contributed post WGLC, in my opinion those changes are very useful for a more comprehensive CC solution, and therefore should be considered. I have provisionally provided a 09 version of the internet draft. You can find the changes at  http://bliss-ietf.org/drafts/diff_ccbs.html

Your opinions?



Regards, Martin