Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn

Atle Monrad <atle.monrad@ericsson.com> Mon, 06 January 2014 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <atle.monrad@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30311ACCE0 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:57:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.46
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 uGAnhj5N8V7R for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A331AC4C1 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f2b8e0000073bf-74-52ca61c7e144
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A7.FB.29631.7C16AC25; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:56:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB203.ericsson.se ([169.254.3.164]) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.63]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:56:23 +0100
From: Atle Monrad <atle.monrad@ericsson.com>
To: "celine.serrutvalette@orange.com" <celine.serrutvalette@orange.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "cuss@ietf.org" <cuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
Thread-Index: AQHO4KQz6m0bJAR+y0uBhOtWswz/6Zo61B+AgBuD74CAAKM9IIAgqUng
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <7D2F7D7ADBA812449F25F4A69922881C2664CB@ESESSMB203.ericsson.se>
References: <5283CECB.8050804@bell-labs.com> <681_1385654486_529768D6_681_2889_1_b84635f4-ca26-4417-911b-a5721866222a@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F9917@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <11023_1387205849_52AF14D9_11023_2363_1_F8BE5641EC3C954DA088A8350BDDFA480FF883@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <11023_1387205849_52AF14D9_11023_2363_1_F8BE5641EC3C954DA088A8350BDDFA480FF883@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: nb-NO, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6JxFNBBrufs1tsmHiOzeJG+wtm i6eNZxkdmD1an+1l9Viy5CeTR8uzk2wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGT13prIVTIipOPT8GnsD 41rvLkZODgkBE4lPt38xQthiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4wSix+PgbJghnMaNE//5VTCBVbAI6Eud+ 3mEFSYgILGWU6FvZxAqSEBawlJh38CkLiC0iYCXx7M4rJgjbTeL4j7NANgcHi4CKxIdTqSAm r4C3RMM8Toj575kkzh27ALaMU6CNUWJ37zJ2kCJGAVmJuU28IGOYBcQlbj2ZzwRxqYDEkj3n mSFsUYmXj/+xQthKEmsPb2eBqNeTuDF1ChuErS2xbOFrsHpeAUGJkzOfsExgFJ2FZOwsJC2z kLTMQtKygJFlFaNkcWpxcW66kYFebnpuiV5qUWZycXF+nl5x6iZGYBQd3PLbaAfjyT32hxil OViUxHmvs9YECQmkJ5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamCsXDVDfdvmP9ODPL8Iqp5Kuj3N yOYHI+Mrx1KWxbcmx277YPBPpU7RKkYnvDvs6mJfqw0nX3N3PJndZ97wPZvlOtsC+7pzzy5x xnVrirx9ZdG2fVLrQb/J/bFRUdui7Nat785XWpRl/09kfURTgZjsgklbb0/qrF8aPXHdnAXr X/0saug7U5ynxFKckWioxVxUnAgAMuJMkHACAAA=
Subject: Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" <cuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 07:57:07 -0000

Folks

Personally I think that Keith has answered this in a previous mail, but for the record; can I assume that the comments from Celine need no further reply before the draft can continue its journey towards RFC?

I would also be happy to understand the timeline for the remaining steps of this draft.

On:
Note just an editorial comment: in section 16 about changes, "ISDNinterwork" purpose value should be replaced by "isdn-interwork".
As this section will be removed by the RFC editor, I am not really sure that a new version need to be produced to add this nit.

Cheers
/atle

________________________________ 


Atle Monrad
3GPP CT Chairman

Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation 
Ericsson



-----Original Message-----
From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of celine.serrutvalette@orange.com
Sent: 16. desember 2013 15:57
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); cuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn

Hello,

Thank you for the update of the ISDN draft.
I have just some comments or questions below on your answers to my previous comments:

1/ The text about "isdn-interwork" is in section 8 "UAS requirements" but it is also applicable to other sections, for instance to section 7 "UAC requirements" (when UAC receives UUI in responses), so could it be replicated in section 7 "UAC requirements" or only put once in section 11 "Coding requirements" in order to be global, as you prefer?
Note just an editorial comment: in section 16 about changes, "ISDNinterwork" purpose value should be replaced by "isdn-interwork".

2/A/ I agree with your comment on "originating user". But I think it would be better to clarify the expected behavior by UAS [respectively by UAC] on reception of User-to-User that is not with the "purpose" parameter to "isdn-uui", or with no "purpose" parameter, in a request [respectively in a response], as follows:  

"When receiving UUI, when a User-to-User header field is received in a request that is not from the originating user with the "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui", or with no "purpose" header field parameter, the UAC MUST discard this header field." => this sentence of the draft is ok but "UAC" should be replaced by "UAS", isn't it? Because it's the UAS that receives the request containing UUI sent by UAC (same comment for sentences beginning by "When receiving UUI, when multiple User-to-User header [...]", it seems to me that "UAS" and "UAC" are inverted).

"When receiving UUI, when a User-to-User header field is received in a response that is not with the "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui", or with no "purpose" header field parameter, the UAC MUST discard this header field." => this sentence could be added in order to specify the UAC behavior when it receives unexpected UUI in a response from the UAS.

2/B/ Yes the sentence "When sending UUI for the ISDN package, the UAS SHOULD set the User-to-User "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui".  Non-inclusion of the "purpose" [...]" is well present in both sections 7 and 8. 
But the sentence "When sending UUI for the ISDN package, if the "purpose" header field is included, the UAC MUST set the User-to-User "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui"." is only present in section 7 but not in section 8, why? (first sentence aims at recommending to include a purpose parameter using a SHOULD whereas second sentence clarifies the required value using a MUST)  

Thank you for your clarifications.

Best regards
 
Celine Serrut-Valette
Orange Labs

-----Message d'origine-----
De : DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
Envoyé : lundi 16 décembre 2013 04:25
À : SERRUT VALETTE Celine IMT/OLN; Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay); cuss@ietf.org Objet : RE: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn

See below.

I will issue the version without the last two changes, but if the discussion identifies some other text with which the group agrees, a new version can always be issued.

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> celine.serrutvalette@orange.com
> Sent: 28 November 2013 16:01
> To: Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay); cuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please find below some comments:
> 
> 1/ About "isdn-interwork" versus "isdn-uui" purpose parameter value: 
> 
> The discussions on the "[cuss] "isdn-uui" versus "isdn-network"" email 
> thread confirmed that there is still support from other cuss 
> participants for addressing the use of the "isdn-network" parameter 
> value. So, we don't think the document can be published without 
> addressing this issue. We also understand that at least one company 
> would not accept replacing "RECOMMEND" with "MUST", so we propose to 
> stick to the initial approach (cf 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00509.htm
> l ) and add the following text in section 11:
> 
> "The 'isdn-interwork' value for purpose parameter was used in 
> Internet-Drafts that have led to the publication of the present RFC.
> Although these documents had no other status than "work in progress", 
> this value is implemented by some vendors. Therefore, it is 
> RECOMMENDED to support parsing and interpreting 'isdn-interwork' the 
> same way as 'isdn-uui' when receiving."
> 
This one has been dealt with in a separate dialog, and the text agreed as a result of that dialog incorporated.

> 2/ About UAC and UAS procedures:
> 
> After having compared the UAC and UAS procedures in sections
> 7 and 8, I noticed that 2 UAC procedures could be replicated as UAS 
> procedures as well, so I would suggest to add in section 7:
> "When receiving UUI, when a User-to-User header field is received in a 
> response that is not from the originating user with the "purpose"
> header field parameter to "isdn-uui", or with no "purpose" header 
> field parameter, the UAS MUST discard this header field."
> (this procedure seems not present for UAS)
> 
Section 7 is the UAC procedures, and therefore material will never be from the originating user.

This requirement was drafted because UUS1 in ISDN can only be originated from the originating user and therefore this is a unidirectional requirement.

Therefore I do not see the need for an equivalent procedure in clause 7.

> And to add in section 8:
> "When sending UUI for the ISDN package, if the "purpose" 
> header field is included, the UAS MUST set the User-to-User "purpose" 
> header field parameter to "isdn-uui"."
> (this procedure is present for UAS but not so explicitly written)
> 

Section 8 includes:

   The UAS MAY include the User-to-User header field in responses to the
   initial INVITE request, or the BYE requests or responses for the
   dialog, only where the original INVITE request included a User-to-
   User header field with the "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-
   uui", or where no "purpose" header field parameter was included.
   When sending UUI for the ISDN package, the UAS SHOULD set the User-
   to-User "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui".  Non-
   inclusion of the "purpose" header field parameter is permitted, but
   this is primarily to allow earlier implementations to support this
   package.  The UAS MUST NOT include more than one User-to-User header
   field for this package in any SIP request or response.

Does this not effectively say that.


> It could be worthwhile to add them in order to be symmetric when a 
> procedure is common to both UAC and UAS, otherwise people could wonder 
> if it means that they are just missing or if it means that they are 
> not applicable.
> 
> 
> We would like these 1/ and 2/ comments to be taken into account before 
> the ISDN draft becomes a RFC.
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Celine Serrut-Valette
> Orange Labs
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] De la part 
> de Vijay K. Gurbani Envoyé : mercredi 13 novembre
> 2013 20:11 À : cuss@ietf.org Objet : [cuss] WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
> 
> Folks: Enrico and I will like to announce a WGLC for the ISDN draft 
> [1].
> 
> The WGLC will run from Wed, Nov 13 2013 to Fri, Nov 29 2013.
> 
> We will appreciate your comments on the draft, posted to the list.  
> All comments are appreciated, even if it is a simple one-liner saying 
> that you believe the draft is ready, or conversely, that it is not 
> ready (and why).
> 
> As you review the draft, as part of your WGLC review, please identify 
> any issues that may exist in regard to compatibility with 
> draft-ietf-cuss-uui (the mechanism draft).
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn/
> 
> Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete 
> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have 
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
> 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
cuss mailing list
cuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss