Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 16 April 2014 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 ED5931A01D8 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 n-3JYygFyXRH for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF741A01BB for <cuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qe321n0081GhbT855fLVlZ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:20:29 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qfLU1n00l3ZTu2S3TfLUGf; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:20:29 +0000
Message-ID: <534E9FBC.3000508@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:20:28 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Rafferty <jay@humancomm.com>, "'DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)'" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, 'Alan Johnston' <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
References: <533DDDE5.9030101@bell-labs.com> <533EC296.2080603@alum.mit.edu> <CAKhHsXFSXaY=Ch_YKfVN6AyYmF_UCVzy4wdoj-mBjLKXjHyGsQ@mail.gmail.com> <533F0885.7040503@alum.mit.edu> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1873A1@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <534C9283.3010206@alum.mit.edu> <CAKhHsXECj+HsBNYju8kE8yUJ9-ijdvs6KTPnnO6wW_4A_UqRXw@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B187709@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <534D8474.70403@alum.mit.edu> <03fd01cf58f2$03946320$0abd2960$@humancomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <03fd01cf58f2$03946320$0abd2960$@humancomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1397661629; bh=7fgtGJY7VlF1/FpmWE88hZVxXbrtvx+vWclx6phvLd0=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=fFMZ4u+2CMYXg8DNO0VhipwVtIC51EzXkgdyYRUgpsspKTf/DjugWYA2f2EWToKBm vEMTwdlAzA5I5Oj/oCrqdV8Zd/LgfEukdWMHOs85WIpkf6yaRCC6yJtp2uu3c5de/M af03ZEivdclX9X61VPMXoLFP8zkRqFMPhddEbQWBf7ZKa6/EOQ0LmysFdQs68gpKOr eT1JJ6rgmT3kRZywCkPOdBc1VVHvvV/cDamaYIga7SJBiSNxKtwyWtoRAvRMT7GzR8 sW/X9F7Bj6CFmfJSx6GTRNT65FKL96dCzqvAbikmj2mxefy9xanET++7tabTB+fMFZ 86+QSzUby2bjw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/BnBFJdfgZogyN3V1w7JXw6mp-9s
Cc: cuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:20:35 -0000

On 4/15/14 5:30 PM, James Rafferty wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Alan noted, we seem to be having two discussions here.  What I thought
> we'd be talking about is what level of IANA action is needed.  Recent drafts
> set that bar at "Standards Action."  I'm personally open to the less
> rigorous definition of "Specification Required," which would allow
> organizations outside of the IETF to define packages, but would still imply
> that the guidelines in Section 5 would continue to be enforced.  However,
> there hasn't been any discussion about such a middle ground.
>
> Paul, would lowering the bar to "Specification Required" help offer some of
> the flexibility you want?  This would allow other packages to be defined --
> inside or outside the IETF -- but would still imply adherence to the
> guidelines in section 5.  This would also bring a "designated expert" into
> play, in order to provide review of the proposed specification.

I don't think reducing to "Specification Required" would address my 
concerns in any way. I don't even think reducing to FCFS would do that.

Frankly, *for now* I am satisfied to leave the requirement at Standards 
Action, with the understanding that this is just temporary to get the 
basic mechanism (with the ISDN package) published. That allows us to 
keep control and so prevent something stupid being done.

Then I think there should be further discussion about how purpose, 
content, and encoding *should* be used, and what sorts of registration 
policies would facilitate that.

My thinking is that it should be something like feature tags, with the 
namespace partitioned, so there can be some values with standardized 
values, and another part of the namespace that can be used by individual 
enterprises without need of registration while still preventing collision.

> On some of the other points:
>
> -- Encodings -- I would not expect too many of those to be defined; my
> former company  supported the current binary definition and an earlier ASCII
> encoding

Yes. Me too. But it would be useful to have a discussion of what might 
be other meaningful values.

I personally would have liked to also see a "text" (or "ascii" or 
whatever) encoding. I think many uses would find this sufficient, and it 
would be much more readable for diagnosing call flows, for examples, etc.

Beyond that I don't know. It depends on how the line is drawn between 
content and encoding.

> -- Purpose -- This is the rationale behind having a separate package

Once we get beyond ISDN, I see Purpose as being the primary mechanism 
for ensuring that sender and receiver are compatible.

> -- Content -- allows for further elaboration on what kinds of semantic
> information are supported; see section 5.1 on extensibility

I think it is likely that there would be only one content per purpose, 
and so it will be redundant. OTOH, the purpose could be treated as a 
sort of interface, with the content naming individual messages within 
the interface.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> James
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:12 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Alan Johnston
> Cc: cuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for
> draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
>
> On 4/15/14 4:24 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> In the use cse Paul had been giving, I have an assumption that the
>> ISDN package would be used (because call centers) are connected to the
>> PSTN as well. This would be effectively a privately defined protocol
>> running over the top, and signalled as such.
>> If you want a public protocol (i.e. standardised) running over the
>> top, the package definition, or any other UUI parameters, could be
>> coupled with the RFC that defines it.
>
> It doesn't matter if the call center is connected to the PSTN. What matters
> is the source and destination of the UUI. There is a pretty good chance that
> those will be connected with sip - probably within the same enterprise.
>
> Everybody using the ISDN package is a *problem*, because it has no way to
> distinguish different usages that don't interoperate.
>
> The point I'm making is that most of the usages *won't* be public. (Are
> there *any* that *are*?)
>
> I write a VXML application for my business. It collects some information,
> and then forwards the call to an ACD, passing the collected information via
> UUI. The format and purpose of that data is specific to my particular VXML
> app and the application the call center operators use. Who is going to write
> an RFC to define that? (Nobody!) If that accidentally ends up at the "wrong"
> app, how will it be detected that it is wrong? (Hopefully by the purpose and
> content attributes of the UUI.)
>
> How do you imagine purpose and content being used, such that somebody would
> be in a position to write an RFC to define them?
>
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
>
>> Keith
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>      *From:* Alan Johnston [mailto:alan.b.johnston@gmail.com]
>>      *Sent:* 15 April 2014 03:44
>>      *To:* Paul Kyzivat
>>      *Cc:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith); cuss@ietf.org
>>      *Subject:* Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline
>>      for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
>>
>>      Paul,
>>
>>      Keith and I have been discussing this in terms of new packages,
>>      which can define all new SIP semantics, but I notice in your
>>      response you are mainly talking about contents.  Perhaps we could
>>      have different requirements for these: the specification required
>>      for new packages, but something lower for contents.  I'm not
>>      completely sure where encodings would fit in this scheme.
>>
>>      What do you think?
>>
>>      - Alan -
>>
>>
>>      On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
>>      <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>          On 4/14/14 9:36 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>
>>              I believe we would want the guidelines enforced.
>>
>>              I also expect that we would want to do a further review of
>>              the guidelines if they are the sole basis for allowing
>>              packages in or not, before we allowed a relaxation of the
>>              approval regime.
>>
>>
>>          I think the effect of the registration rules will be that no new
>>          registrations are made, and the default will be used by
>>          everyone, as is currently the case. That means that everyone
>>          depends upon configuration to ensure that client and server
>>          agree on usage.
>>
>>          If you are running a call center, and decide what information
>>          you need to communicate from your IVR to your ACD, are you going
>>          to publish an RFC to register the format for that? I think not.
>>          Even a FCFS registration is probably too much. Yet it would
>>          still be good to ensure that client and server are using the
>>          same formats.
>>
>>          When I raised this issue early on, I got no traction for it, so
>>          I decided to let it go until people had deployment experience.
>>          Then they could figure out they need something different. But
>>          now it has come up again.
>>
>>                   Thanks,
>>                   Paul
>>
>>              Regards
>>
>>              Keith
>>
>>                  -----Original Message-----
>>                  From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org
>>                  <mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>>                  Sent: 04 April 2014 20:31
>>                  To: Alan Johnston
>>                  Cc: cuss@ietf.org <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
>>                  Subject: Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action"
>>                  guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
>>
>>                  On 4/4/14 12:46 PM, Alan Johnston wrote:
>>
>>                      Paul,
>>
>>                      I know you've explained this before.  But you
>>                      haven't explained how
>>                      the requirements in Section 5. Guidelines for UUI
>>                      Packages can be
>>                      enforced if there isn't any review.  Can you
>>                      elaborate on this?
>>
>>
>>                  With no review these couldn't be enforced.
>>                  They could still remain as guidelines.
>>
>>                           Thanks,
>>                           Paul
>>
>>                      - Alan -
>>
>>
>>                      On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Paul Kyzivat
>>                      <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>                      <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
>>                      <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>>__> wrote:
>>
>>                            Interesting to see this come back.
>>
>>                            My original opinion was (and still is) that
>>                      for these
>>
>>                  to be useful,
>>
>>                            it must be possible for using enterprises to
>>                      assign new
>>
>>                  values for
>>
>>                            each distinct deployment of an application.
>>                      IMO even
>>
>>                  FCFS might be
>>
>>                            too high a bar for this.
>>
>>                            E.g., if I create a particular VXML
>>                      application that
>>
>>                  captures some
>>
>>                            data and communicates it to a call center
>> agent
>>
>>                  application via UUI,
>>
>>                            then the format of that data is likely to be
>>                      unique.
>>
>>                            Lowering the bar below FCFS would require a
>>                      naming scheme that
>>                            guarantees uniqueness without registration.
>>
>>                                     Thanks,
>>                                     Paul
>>
>>                            On 4/3/14 6:17 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>>
>>                                All: The IESG has sent
>>                      draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui to the WG to
>>                                ratify the
>>                                "Standards Action" guideline for defining
>>                      UUI packages and
>>                                registering
>>                                new IANA elements for the parameter
>> tables for
>>
>>                  purpose, encoding and
>>
>>                                content.
>>
>>                                The draft authors note that the original
>>                      concern
>>
>>                  when the work
>>
>>                                was coming out of Dispatch was that the
>>                      UUI not
>>
>>                  become a "wildcard"
>>
>>                                header to be used for a wide variety of
>>                      purposes.  Hence the
>>                                direction
>>                                toward requiring a standards track RFC.
>>                        However, a
>>
>>                  lesser standard
>>
>>                                such as "Specification Required" might
>>                      suffice and
>>
>>                  offer more
>>
>>                                flexibility for additional use cases,
>>                      while not
>>
>>                  opening up the
>>
>>                                process
>>                                totally as would be the case for "First
>>                      Come First Serve."
>>
>>                                The IESG will like to revisit this
>> decision to
>>
>>                  confirm that the WG
>>
>>                                decisions remains "Standards Action".
>>
>>                                To that end, Enrico and I will like to
>>                      open up a
>>
>>                  2-week period
>>
>>                                to ratify
>>                                this decision to remain at "Standards
>>                      Action" or to move to
>>                                something
>>                                other designation.
>>
>>                                The 2-week period ends on close of
>>                      business (US
>>
>>                  Central Time)
>>
>>                                April 17,
>>                                2014.  Please express an opinion; if you
>>                      are for
>>
>>                  keeping status quo,
>>
>>                                please send a one-liner to the cuss WG
>> mailing
>>
>>                  list.  If you are
>>
>>                                of the
>>                                opinion that we should relax the burden,
>>                      please
>>
>>                  state so and a short
>>
>>                                reason on why we should do so.
>>
>>                                Thank you all.
>>
>>                                - vijay
>>
>>
>>
>>                        ___________________________________________________
>>                            cuss mailing list
>>                      cuss@ietf.org <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
>>                      <mailto:cuss@ietf.org <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>>
>>                      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/____listinfo/cuss
>>                      <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/cuss>
>>                            <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/cuss
>>                      <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                  _________________________________________________
>>                  cuss mailing list
>>                  cuss@ietf.org <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
>>                  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/cuss
>>                  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
>
>