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
> 