Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 2007 Requirement in 6.1, 6.2

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 660E93A6944 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.244
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3n65KUG94yCk for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6F83A67E1 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o9TCtR2L001329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:57:04 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.44]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:56:46 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>, Shida Schubert <shida@agnada.com>, BLISS <bliss@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:56:45 +0200
Thread-Topic: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 2007 Requirement in 6.1, 6.2
Thread-Index: AQHLdwR4Ri1QOADCMkaYhnKKI594SZNX4myg
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE219707DF6@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22022889AD@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22022889AD@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80
Subject: Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 2007 Requirement in 6.1, 6.2
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: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:55:40 -0000

There are enough "SHOULD" statements in this document already. Before creating any more I think we need a more detailed discussion of the effect.

Lets start with the maxim that every "SHOULD" should be followed by a sentence that states the cases or situations where we would consider it either possible or impossible to ignore the requirements.

And we also need to look for cases where we really mean "If <case> then xxxx MUST..."

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bliss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bliss-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Worley, Dale R (Dale)
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:58 AM
> To: Shida Schubert; BLISS
> Subject: Re: [BLISS] WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 2007 Requirement in 6.1, 6.2
> 
> In section 6.1 is "The caller's agent MUST record the From 
> URI and MAY record ...".  I think we want "... and SHOULD 
> record ...", as that recording will increase the chance of 
> successful operation.
> 
> In section 6.2 is " The caller's agent MAY add an 'm' 
> parameter to these URIs."  I think this should be "... SHOULD 
> add ...", as that will increase the chance of successful 
> operation (and all envisioned applications will be able to do this).
> 
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> BLISS mailing list
> BLISS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
>