[cuss] alignment between draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10 and draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17

Atle Monrad <atle.monrad@ericsson.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 20:58 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D281ACDF5 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:58:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96kdV5goCXKF for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C4B71ACDC7 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:58:33 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f791c6d00000617b-4a-546126f78c5d
Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3D.2B.24955.7F621645; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:58:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB203.ericsson.se ([]) by ESESSHC012.ericsson.se ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:58:31 +0100
From: Atle Monrad <atle.monrad@ericsson.com>
To: "cuss@ietf.org" <cuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [cuss] alignment between draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10 and draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17
Thread-Index: Ac/9KIKPEA8Ax3YPQZaYIudPpM8Xtw==
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:58:30 +0000
Message-ID: <7D2F7D7ADBA812449F25F4A69922881C168F9F3B@ESESSMB203.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: nb-NO, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje53tcQQg0vvNC2mn/nLaHGj/QWz xdQ+Wwdmjy9PXjJ5LFnyk8lj8sZZLAHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZy5evYyq4p1+xafY9pgbG uWpdjJwcEgImEoua57NB2GISF+6tB7K5OIQEjjBKXDpynR3CWcIo8eDMAlaQKjYBHYlzP++A 2SICyhJ9qzvYQWxmgQiJv7fPMoHYwgJJEkdPb4CqSZe4+foXO4StJ/Fg8hlmEJtFQFWibf9O oBoODl4BX4lVf4pATEYBWYm5TbwQE8Ulbj2ZzwRxm4DEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/+xQthKEotuf2aC qNeRWLD7ExuErS2xbOFrsHpeAUGJkzOfsExgFJmFZOwsJC2zkLTMQtKygJFlFaNocWpxUm66 kbFealFmcnFxfp5eXmrJJkZgfBzc8lt1B+PlN46HGAU4GJV4eD98jA8RYk0sK67MPcQozcGi JM678Ny8YCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MmSz7U8LPJpyf/5bDc+bqbct8JYr0 Nimaf7py+P9EZm8rjT3Smy9cvjz3UeT1JibeuV6sV29Fd0eeOcvOGLnl0eSpXFeKpW+YW7af s9p9Y8GFV1++W7xcO2Hah46FrLH/fjz4VBgt9lf4iOD71dGi6vJTvjSLn1Tmqb288O3R/WrB s3wLutm+NSmxFGckGmoxFxUnAgCZoU75cAIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/LwlAKRs-uKqk528Lk518Stj8qMA
Subject: [cuss] alignment between draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10 and draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17
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, 10 Nov 2014 20:58:39 -0000


On June 23rd, I asked some questions to draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-09, and one of the questions was: "It is not clear to me if the way this draft use the permutations of the term "user to user", i.e.  'user to user', 'User to User', 'User-to-User' and 'User-to-user' have any logic. If so, I'd be happy to understand it..."

A few days ago ...  version -10 of the draft came out, where the new version of the draft attempted to align the terms as "User to User Information" and "User-to-User header field".

After this, it has been some off-list discussions whether this usage of these terms is correct or not.

My 1st priority is to get the cuss-drafts completed, as 3GPP is still waiting for the drafts to be completed. 
I do not mind the alignment too much, but as I find consistent use of terminology useful, I have compared the draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10 and draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17.

Between draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10 and draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17, I find the usage of "User to User Information" and "User-to-User header field" quite consistent, EXCEPT 3 instances  of "user-to-user information" in section "8.1.  Why INFO is Not Used" of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui.

IMHO  the two drafts are aligned at present (with the fixes  of "user-to-user information" in draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17). If it is a wish to revert a number of the terms in draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10, I think the authors should have a look at draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17 as well for alignment.

I have also had a look at RFC6567, which is consistent in the use of the term "User-to-User", thus it is an option to consistently use the terms "User-to-User Information" AND "User-to-User header field" in both drafts, and be in line with the requirements-RFC :-)

In addition, both drafts use terms like UUI data, UUI service, UUI content parameters, UUI application, UUI header field, UUI mechanism, etc .... in a similar fashion, thus I do not think anything  is needed to do in this area. 

At last I have an additional comments that I think you must take onboard in draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn AND in draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui unless you can justify the current text.

In draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui, the terms "UUI package" and "package" is used a bit in a mix. It start off as "UUI package" and move towards "package" possibly due to making the text read a bit easier. I think that the term "UUI package" is rather easy to do use consistently and should be a quick fix in all instances where you target mentioning the UUI package and not package in general.

In draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn, the terms used are "package", "UUI package" and "ISDN package". To me it seems that these terms are not used aligned and correct. While the draft may wish to refer to some instances of "package" (in general) the "UUI package" (generally for any UUI-packages) and e.g. the "ISDN-UUI package" (specifically), I think you need to review the descriptive text and decide on what term to use where. This is also why I think you should correct the draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui WRT the term "package" versus "UUI package" to have alignment between the two drafts.

I hope that these changes can be taken onboard in new revisions of the drafts as soon as possible. It is not my intention to send the drafts into another 3-month cycle waiting for new versions. If the current authors have no time for making a quick update, I propose that new authors (assumed found ...) that are willing do the needed corrections by a defined deadline can be assigned.



Atle Monrad
3GPP CT Chairman

Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation 

-----Original Message-----
From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
Sent: 24. oktober 2014 13:35
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: cuss@ietf.org
Subject: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with SIP
        Authors         : Keith Drage
                          Alan Johnston
	Filename        : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-10.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2014-10-24

   The motivation and use cases for interworking and transporting ITU-T
   DSS1 User to User information element data in SIP are described in
   RFC 6567.  As networks move to SIP, it is important that applications
   requiring this data can continue to function in SIP networks as well
   as the ability to interwork with this ISDN service for end-to-end
   transparency.  This document defines a usage (a new package) of the
   User-to-User header field to enable interworking with this ISDN

   This document covers the interworking with both public ISDN and
   private ISDN capabilities, so the potential interworking with QSIG
   will also be addressed.

   The package is identified by a new value "isdn-uui" of the "purpose"
   header field parameter.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There's also a htmlized version available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

cuss mailing list