Re: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 01:36 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 012251A06B6 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 GYVcw91mU-2N for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoemail2.alcatel.com (hoemail2.alcatel.com [192.160.6.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DCD1A02CA for <cuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by hoemail2.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s3F1aEjx019535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:36:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s3F1aD12009243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:36:13 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.4]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:36:13 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [cuss] Ratification of "Standards Action" guideline for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
Thread-Index: AQHPT4pBb4V/ZbOWiECsn8iI8uuD3psBZOsAgAAlNICAAC4qgIAE6Y4w
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 01:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1873A1@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <533DDDE5.9030101@bell-labs.com> <533EC296.2080603@alum.mit.edu> <CAKhHsXFSXaY=Ch_YKfVN6AyYmF_UCVzy4wdoj-mBjLKXjHyGsQ@mail.gmail.com> <533F0885.7040503@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <533F0885.7040503@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/uCG1Gxv2kCWP6G3iU9nojcCnutw
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 01:36:27 -0000
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. 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