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

I've included this in section 8 UAS requirements as a new 5th paragraph

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DRAGE, 
> Keith (Keith)
> Sent: 03 December 2013 06:56
> To: Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay); cuss@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
>