Re: [cuss] "isdn-uui" versus "isdn-network"

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear all,
I had no problems in adding a note since such Note has more a guideline function which can be taken into consideration based on bilateral agreements and local policy. 
BUT
I have problems with the whole discussion about making the "isdn-interworking" now as a normative and mandatory alias or additional element which has now to be understood by all interworking points.

We have implemented 3GPP TS 29.163 which bases on the latest IETF draft. And this document never stated the "isdn-interworking" has to be used for interworking. 


Best Regards

Roland

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: cuss [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 03:14
An: Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich); Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay); [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [cuss] "isdn-uui" versus "isdn-network"

I have indicated right at the start of one of the original calls that I would prefer not to make any addition in this area. But putting that aside for the moment.

In the hallway discussion, I tried to get clarification as to what the change should mean, because I have had several inconstent answers to this in the past. This basically falls into two issues:

1)	Whether the change was a note (i.e. normative) or informative. My understanding of Bruno's postion was that it should be normative, which means essentially that all implementations recognise the value when it is received. However conformant implementations only generate the correct value. It appears however other people were not aware that the change was intended to be normative, based on your continued representation of this as a "NOTE".

2)	If the change was normative, then presumably the new value should be IANA registered. It was apparently this that caused people to say that they did not want a normative change (which I guess would lead to the impression that the usage was sanctioned for the future), and subsequently that did not see the point of an informative change.

In response to Christer, when writing the draft, we chose a label that was consistent with the usage it was to be put, which was not to be constrained to interworking with the ISDN, but rather one that provided the equivalent capabilities. We were not aware that we were constrained by examples showing other values in previous drafts; indeed we did not even look at some of those older versions in this respect - at the time this was a new document with a clean field.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Belling, Thomas 
> (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Sent: 25 November 2013 11:35
> To: Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [cuss] "isdn-uui" versus "isdn-network"
> 
> For me, it is also quite important to finalize the work.
> 
> I have a certain sympathy for considering backward compatibility, as I 
> understand that the concerns relate to real deployments and seem of 
> interest to make things work in reality. I thus support related 
> wording in the draft.
> 
> I understand the point that drafts should be regarded as experimental 
> and subject to change. However, this is only fine if features demanded 
> in the market are finalized within a reasonable time. If work goes on 
> for about five years (as in the current case), backward compatibility 
> will become a real concern no matter if purists like it. The main 
> takeaway could be to aim to finalize work in a reasonable amount of 
> time.
> 
> BR, Thomas
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Dr. Thomas Belling
> 3GPP Standardisation
> NSN
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Vijay K. 
> Gurbani
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:56 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [cuss] "isdn-uui" versus "isdn-network"
> 
> On 11/22/2013 12:36 PM, Atle Monrad wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I guess each of the "shall we allow multiple
> representations" needs to
> > be handled on a case-by-case basis, but generally speaking I 
> > understand that the chairs and ADs aren't too enthusiastic with too 
> > many ...
> >
> > What 3GPP really wants for Christmas is the draft to be completed.
> > Somebody must take a decision on this soon.
> 
> ... which means that by Nov 29, 2013 it'd be nice to hear from others 
> who have an opinion.
> 
> Many thanks to those who have already expressed one.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - 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} / [e-mail]
> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: 
> http://goo.gl/x3Ogq _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
> 
_______________________________________________
cuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss