Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 02:44 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 BD8221A030C for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 r2Nb71N-baYs for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738FF1A030B for <cuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w61so9001972wes.1 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:44:16 -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=V2p3+5mFNVOpUoi/zk3Abep5ZTGsKeydnXfB08D/KLk=; b=boca/gGcpSyNRpiCcRQjkr8XmpszgL0fIk1jkkbx8Mu09aUeAlfw+AtsC9TJfqzasM fJth29wBpRhC3flc5ICokJSN9LpzfwechZ3qOVAJa7QWbcIcalcxxHsWU7yRI8PmLFLP nHXcumSQiMzsp8JqKCV5HxYHceKLIXHCCRYgRPXJ/vkL3rt8xUB2ovJp+p8C+/GEvbqj q+CpZiNJKXG4/mlYC/BTC5/CrUzx+MhzF6xRFda1ER3lcUgndjMDTBMyamIPz2Dvr/z8 gR/bPlLytMDTcixWsSafVCpjJ2/4QNUHcpVYDjjSgRyjtWboo9sfSFclvq/r0XssQrsm mRpg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.60.114 with SMTP id g18mr3924wjr.61.1397529854901; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.152.10 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534C9283.3010206@alum.mit.edu>
References: <533DDDE5.9030101@bell-labs.com> <533EC296.2080603@alum.mit.edu> <CAKhHsXFSXaY=Ch_YKfVN6AyYmF_UCVzy4wdoj-mBjLKXjHyGsQ@mail.gmail.com> <533F0885.7040503@alum.mit.edu> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1873A1@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <534C9283.3010206@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:44:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKhHsXECj+HsBNYju8kE8yUJ9-ijdvs6KTPnnO6wW_4A_UqRXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b66f33d9083d904f70bc666"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/ncT13AYIcf5LctBXWWTVjLwAqTM
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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:44:23 -0000
Paul, Keith and I have been discussing this in terms of new packages, which can define all new SIP semantics, but I notice in your response you are mainly talking about contents. Perhaps we could have different requirements for these: the specification required for new packages, but something lower for contents. I'm not completely sure where encodings would fit in this scheme. What do you think? - Alan - On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/14/14 9:36 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > >> I believe we would want the guidelines enforced. >> >> I also expect that we would want to do a further review of the guidelines >> if they are the sole basis for allowing packages in or not, before we >> allowed a relaxation of the approval regime. >> > > I think the effect of the registration rules will be that no new > registrations are made, and the default will be used by everyone, as is > currently the case. That means that everyone depends upon configuration to > ensure that client and server agree on usage. > > If you are running a call center, and decide what information you need to > communicate from your IVR to your ACD, are you going to publish an RFC to > register the format for that? I think not. Even a FCFS registration is > probably too much. Yet it would still be good to ensure that client and > server are using the same formats. > > When I raised this issue early on, I got no traction for it, so I decided > to let it go until people had deployment experience. Then they could figure > out they need something different. But now it has come up again. > > Thanks, > Paul > > Regards >> >> Keith >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat >>> Sent: 04 April 2014 20:31 >>> To: Alan Johnston >>> Cc: cuss@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" >>> guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui >>> >>> On 4/4/14 12:46 PM, Alan Johnston wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> With no review these couldn't be enforced. >>> They could still remain as guidelines. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Paul >>> >>> - Alan - >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu >>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:cuss@ietf.org> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/cuss >>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cuss mailing list >>> cuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss >>> >>> >
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideli… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Alan Johnston
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Alan Johnston
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Alan Johnston
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" gui… Alissa Cooper