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
>