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

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Fri, 04 April 2014 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
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 090431A0227 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 RHVKN8U1GpFZ for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC6F1A0224 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id x13so3716900wgg.2 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XtVPbGUM+5221ewWUwh4g59g+YxYQGqwEOkmWmSVmSY=; b=X8faMQ47P/bl3Jukmrfn1A9gUJQvAH3Ue6gewVc74Kv6J50pn3kqmw8H0OSvMEhzTY TR929ITWxZQODLNRip6MaB9IR9ZjPDXrtJ6Saxeto0SznZvczHDBYpCfk5MgG12cs7Ep FRZ++FjOoKGNzWE3I95UkezepIbwmB1yF4QchVN3eVq+SAT+IF42s7w+RqBRR1ElXkS7 /oHcT40abZ2fKKNaEcplW8Hy3vB715VODuWcBwCUQgWKiClr3B4+iTfV5RODn2+/ELck +2HmQaBddm4GJ4ADaw3dzqOLn70yLrapZT9NzMqtlgLLO5RCoedpa2Ov5dsKnRYlxNOL HiaQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.147 with SMTP id hk19mr6059411wib.42.1396629963275; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.152.10 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <533EC296.2080603@alum.mit.edu>
References: <533DDDE5.9030101@bell-labs.com> <533EC296.2080603@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:46:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKhHsXFSXaY=Ch_YKfVN6AyYmF_UCVzy4wdoj-mBjLKXjHyGsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba5b5d8044e04f63a401d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/YeYvyC1pgP2V8l1wkE3NoNgdwAk
Cc: "cuss@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:46:13 -0000

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?

- Alan -


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Paul Kyzivat <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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
>