IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [cuss] Review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Mon, 12 March 2012 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032F121E808E for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXg0w+f0xj02 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7073821E8090 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so3545587ggm.31 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=cfwWyRGBKrqRoGZbU+9Y6JwrYnoOSCacX9XjXNzYqyE=; b=oq1tOCIAQovhjHuSCs8IGnGPyov+aPDkacb2w4JQ9nwh1fasD6Ys5zj6useS+Ou4Oe bdhdYo7s2fDkpEyKqdOOBDvXMFsmc9EJrFAOHXRgKywctWUyzcgm2xVx4nuyVIHI6OeV rVSsu9s+WWazf3MQ29WZ5hA9Nu3LjE3uy6Vj+hBMrhGkY8AcoQHetvnSB2rVyNV3EDPB 8QZkbiUF3YKyp2uXdlfWxDN4dm2nT8QpEPqKQVbA1RiNAqerICYHikU/fqUp8NNIEVi2 wtgJRWOqXDsBLffBi5a3doq+KTRKP8703jXEO5Ms5RhVtQXOdxKR2g1ouxuYVErwsbit AjMg==
Received: by 10.182.136.41 with SMTP id px9mr9471497obb.21.1331589041973; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.72] (99-58-71-98.lightspeed.stlsmo.sbcglobal.net. [99.58.71.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gl4sm22449509obb.23.2012.03.12.14.50.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E83656ADF213@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:50:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D3C7EC70-B938-499B-A9C2-BAEDDDB2E08C@gmail.com>
References: <99469747-AF84-4BC3-8E82-11333BD2D4C4@ntt-at.com> <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E83656ADF213@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "DOLLY, MARTIN C" <md3135@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "cuss@ietf.org" <cuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [cuss] Review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 12 Mar 2012 21:50:45 -0000

Martin,

Thanks very much for the review.  I think I have addressed your comments in the -05 version.  See a few comments below.

- Alan -

On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:32 AM, DOLLY, MARTIN C wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> 
> I was asked by chairs of this WG to review 
> draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui. 
> 
> Below are my comments, build on Shida's comments posted on 11/29/2011
> 
> The concept of "escaping" needs to be added to Section 4 Normative Definition, and an illustrative example would be helpful.

There was an example in an earlier version of the draft (-00) but I disappeared.  I have added it back in.

> 
> UUI can be communicated between an UE and an Application Server acting as a B2BUA, as meets the UAC-UAS requirement, so I believe a statement explicitly stating that should be added to the overview.

Well, in SIP terms, a B2BUA is just a UA, so I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated.  Do you have a particular place in the document where you think this would be best included?

> 
> Complex call center communications can have multiple (3-4) redirections/referrals, so a multiple redirection/referral example would be helpful.

I don't currently have any call flows in this document - I just refer to the ones in the requirements document.  I did add a note saying that multiple redirections are quite possible.

> 
> Is it possible to have multiple UUI headers, either with the same data content encoded differently or with different data content?
> 

Yes, I put in text saying that each package must define rules for this situation.

> What is an intermediary, if it is not a proxy?

It is a proxy, or a border element ( a proxy that sometimes doesn't behave as a proxy).  I think I use the terms the same as they were used in the requirements draft.

> 
> Terminology: the document has UUIs being communicated between UACs and UASs and between endpoints, which is it?

Good catch:  I now just say UAs.

> 
> Considering the same data content could be encoded differently, does this result in multiple UUI packages? And if so, could they be defined in the same RFC?

Yes, I put in a note indicating this.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Martin Dolly
> Lead Member Technical Staff
> Core & Government/Regulatory Standards
> AT&T Services, Inc.
> md3135@att.com
> +1-609-903-3360
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email