Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn

<> Thu, 28 November 2013 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF691AE058 for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:01:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LFE2ChnlQ7ah for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090051AE022 for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2342A3B4790; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:01:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 020AC2380AB; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:01:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:01:25 +0100
From: <>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
Thread-Index: AQHO4KQjpZ8cipsk3kSQgC/b50QzQZo6481g
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:01:23 +0000
Message-ID: <681_1385654486_529768D6_681_2889_1_b84635f4-ca26-4417-911b-a5721866222a@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2013.11.28.100914
Subject: Re: [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:01:30 -0000


Please find below some comments:

1/ About "isdn-interwork" versus "isdn-uui" purpose parameter value: 

The discussions on the "[cuss] "isdn-uui" versus "isdn-network"" email thread confirmed that there is still support from other cuss participants for addressing the use of the "isdn-network" parameter value. So, we don't think the document can be published without addressing this issue. We also understand that at least one company would not accept replacing "RECOMMEND" with "MUST", so we propose to stick to the initial approach (cf ) and add the following text in section 11:

"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."

2/ About UAC and UAS procedures:

After having compared the UAC and UAS procedures in sections 7 and 8, I noticed that 2 UAC procedures could be replicated as UAS procedures as well, so I would suggest to add in section 7:
"When receiving UUI, when a User-to-User header field is received in a response that is not from the originating user with the "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui", or with no "purpose" header field parameter, the UAS MUST discard this header field."
(this procedure seems not present for UAS)

And to add in section 8:
"When sending UUI for the ISDN package, if the "purpose" header field is included, the UAS MUST set the User-to-User "purpose" header field parameter to "isdn-uui"."
(this procedure is present for UAS but not so explicitly written)

It could be worthwhile to add them in order to be symmetric when a procedure is common to both UAC and UAS, otherwise people could wonder if it means that they are just missing or if it means that they are not applicable.

We would like these 1/ and 2/ comments to be taken into account before the ISDN draft becomes a RFC.
Thank you in advance.

Best regards

Celine Serrut-Valette
Orange Labs

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [] De la part de Vijay K. Gurbani
Envoyé : mercredi 13 novembre 2013 20:11
À :
Objet : [cuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn

Folks: Enrico and I will like to announce a WGLC for the ISDN draft [1].

The WGLC will run from Wed, Nov 13 2013 to Fri, Nov 29 2013.

We will appreciate your comments on the draft, posted to the list.  All comments are appreciated, even if it is a simple one-liner saying that you believe the draft is ready, or conversely, that it is not ready (and why).

As you review the draft, as part of your WGLC review, please identify any issues that may exist in regard to compatibility with draft-ietf-cuss-uui (the mechanism draft).

Thank you.


Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco
cuss mailing list


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.