IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

Henning Schulzrinne <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov> Sun, 14 June 2015 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov>
X-Original-To: cnit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cnit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F326E1A004B for <cnit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFRHjxzRwFzO for <cnit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DC-IP-2.fcc.gov (dc-ip-2.fcc.gov [192.104.54.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B8D1A877C for <cnit@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D35C25C@fcc.gov>
From: Henning Schulzrinne <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov>
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
Thread-Index: AQHQpF27t1IjTQnD9Ee6If5FuC7/752nvtOAgAAcbYD//73Z54ABUaEAgAA9LQD//8LlU4AARHQAgAAZ6QCAAArCAIAAB9cAgAAPTgCAABkwgP//7x3tAA73xIAARAClgQ==
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:01:44 +0000
References: <D19F23AD.26CEA%richard@shockey.us> <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E8365603614617@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com> <9588_1434045613_5579CCAD_9588_574_1_fki5dyxdmgyv92b6hugpfuoy.1434045608655@email.android.com> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D354C94@fcc.gov> <9384_1434103912_557AB068_9384_7221_1_B5939C6860701C49AA39C5DA5189448B14C216E0@OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1A05A04.26E84%richard@shockey.us> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D355543@fcc.gov> <557AE9E4.5030205@cs.tcd.ie> <D1A0761F.26EE1%richard@shockey.us> <15E9AA29-E9F1-4DA6-ADA4-E201F8F07B7A@brianrosen.net> <2B0F677F0B95454297753F58D4A07FA30279326B72@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> <53A932AB-5E5D-41C0-895F-21EC1D4B17D5@brianrosen.net> <2B0F677F0B95454297753F58D4A07FA30279326CB7@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D3558A5@fcc.gov>, <D1A0FC51.26FA9%richard@shockey.us>
In-Reply-To: <D1A0FC51.26FA9%richard@shockey.us>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cnit/GV0nS-RTc67O0uXUIKt9ryVngTc>
Cc: "cnit@ietf.org" <cnit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
X-BeenThere: cnit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Calling Name Identity Trust discussion list <cnit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cnit>, <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cnit/>
List-Post: <mailto:cnit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit>, <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:01:48 -0000

The VoLTE/IMS experts listening probably know this better, but judging from some quick Googling of sample VoLTE call flows, SIP display name information is already part of the IMS/VoLTE standards, so model #1 (NNI) shouldn't be that hard, and we can then build on that, as you hint at.

I suspect we all agree that the barrier to entry should be minimal. We can discuss, for example, whether a by-reference or by-value mechanism is better, or we need both.

________________________________________
From: Richard Shockey [richard@shockey.us]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:29 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; Dwight, Timothy M (Tim); Brian Rosen
Cc: philippe.fouquart@orange.com; cnit@ietf.org; Stephen Farrell; Ben Campbell
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

Henning the biggest issue is that any form of advanced CNAM display is not
currently applicable to the the mobile access devices. Which are now
finally over 50% of the NANP even if you consider BYOD in the enterprise.
Yea that is another use case.

Hence the issue with Apple. This is ultimately a problem with that will
have to be coordinated with US GSMA or GSMA generally.

Or IMHO with the the 8th floor on 12th st. It really is a jawboning use.
Tom needs to call Tim Cook or Larry Page and make the ask.

I do reject Brians pretense here. Given the IETF context perfection is
actually the enemy of deployment.

I want a charter that is simple and clear.  Header and object. Period.  If
that is impossible then Š..

Its time the AD¹s decide.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email