Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 04 April 2014 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 D13E01A0192 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 STuvKNYT7zBg for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC601A0174 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.12]) by qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id lnWf1n0020Fqzac56vYVoN; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:32:29 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([IPv6:2002:328a:e5a4:0:e4ed:5ea7:c3bf:a277]) by omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id lvXL1n00T1TX2lk3UvXMjS; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:32:29 +0000
Message-ID: <533F0885.7040503@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:31:17 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
References: <533DDDE5.9030101@bell-labs.com> <533EC296.2080603@alum.mit.edu> <CAKhHsXFSXaY=Ch_YKfVN6AyYmF_UCVzy4wdoj-mBjLKXjHyGsQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKhHsXFSXaY=Ch_YKfVN6AyYmF_UCVzy4wdoj-mBjLKXjHyGsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1396639949; bh=lA5+FmI1cJyylSpeyYYaQXRR46jEZfbJbHcfXABsZ1c=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=gQJjGFhwc6FXySPAJUgmNpzOW2teb/69jRBPjTPxbF6+C+cKgwPwpF7Yw/qobABIR H7eVod48RjWu/fvl28E57kuv0da1ZRrKSibgD6g9gc/iof5lHb9vD52TAaV8rlHvgL FizeI0i4w3KMdUWGDP5fZacHp1bwtGO1tG0jvQYyncZefeEbHF5YOeEGZSMAtm5ynd CyCFVUzH7x1WdNn8TjYIQiq90s4aa1mTgKaybcI4y9e1BGdAs5SlSKTgtO8N4Y29po uwOE+REZ8cowIYM2/WTyTu/dMLwRnvDMToQm0yEGM/MjKP8ylD4/FIajyjY3mrTxJ9 CMmxLLYPHIHpA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/tSqc-pvDq_4HjPh-zDahq87ys9s
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: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:32:39 -0000

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>
>
>