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

<> Fri, 29 November 2013 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAC01AD739 for <>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:14:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xrDYO9k-gS1g for <>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A988A1A1F08 for <>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 29 Nov 2013 10:14:31 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::c943:1394:e86e:fce3]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:14:31 +0100
From: <>
To: <>, <>, <>, <>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:14:30 +0100
Thread-Topic: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
Thread-Index: AQHO4KQz6m0bJAR+y0uBhOtWswz/6Zo61B+AgACqPVCAAIKWYA==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <681_1385654486_529768D6_681_2889_1_b84635f4-ca26-4417-911b-a5721866222a@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:14:40 -0000

when we discussed this approach, everybody was OK with a note since this was agreed on a pragmatic approach.

This was not based on a pedantic interpretation of editorial rules. Going along the rules the wording was not RECOMMENDED it was recommended.

I have nothing against such note written with a lower case recommended. The future RFC will still be understood by people reading it. And if the RFC will be implemented it will work (with or without the Note).

So goal reached.

What will I say. I can go along the PRAGMATIC compromise reached one year ago and I can life without a note. But I cannot accept any normative changes to ABNF.

Best Regards


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cuss [] Im Auftrag von DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. November 2013 02:17
An:; Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay);
Betreff: Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn

With regard to your point 1), you are specifying normative language - for this as defined as follows by RFC 2119:

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

That means exactly the same in 3GPP and therefore any references from 3GPP carry this as a should level requirement - unless you are saying that the general 3GPP architecture provides a reason for the 3GPP specification overriding this.

It means essentially for any general purpose implementation in IETF or 3GPP that this becomes "MUST" or "shall", because the implications cannot be understood unless applied to a specific content usage.

As far as I am aware your organisation is the only one that has been supporting statements at this level.

My read of Roland's last comment was that he would not support a requirement, but I leave him to speak.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [] On Behalf Of 
> Sent: 28 November 2013 16:01
> To: Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay);
> 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 
> 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."
> 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)
> 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)
> 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 : [] De la part 
> de Vijay K. Gurbani Envoyé : mercredi 13 novembre
> 2013 20:11 À : 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]
> Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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 mailing list