Re: [cuss] WGLC done for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn; next steps

In terms of the text added, I have a preference for not using lower case forms of RFC 2119 language if we can avoid it. The reasoning is that it leads to questions as to whether the upper case form was meant, both in final review, publication, and by developers. If we can find therefore some other wording that expresses the same intent.

I am having trouble thinking of some suitable wording, but my suggestion might be:

"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. While not defined by this document, implementations could find it useful for interoperability purposes to support parsing and interpreting 'isdn-interwork' the same way as 'isdn-uui' when receiving messages."

I will work through the other comments and respond hopefully later this week.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vijay 
> K. Gurbani
> Sent: 02 December 2013 15:16
> To: cuss@ietf.org
> Subject: [cuss] WGLC done for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn; next steps
> 
> Folks:
> 
> The WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn is now over.
> 
> Below is my personal interpretation of where the matter 
> stands, i.e., what I write below is not written as a co-chair 
> but rather to determine if the WG agree that this is where 
> matters now stand.  Please comment if I deviate from what you 
> all agree.
> 
> - "isdn-network" is tacitly supported, but not overtly so.
> 
> - More specifically, "isdn-network" is not IANA registered, and all
>    text related to it is not normative.
> 
> - The addition of the Note uses non-normative language, i.e.,
> 
>       "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
>       messages."
> 
> Is this an accurate representation?
> 
> Now back with the co-chair hat on ...
> 
> There has been reviews of the draft [1,2,3] by key WG 
> members.  Can the draft authors please comment on next steps 
> with respect to revising the draft.  Enrico and I will start 
> the shepherding step in parallel to the revision to be submitted.
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00531.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00539.html
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00522.html
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 
> Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: 
> http://goo.gl/x3Ogq _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
> 