Re: [dispatch] RFC 3680 extensibility

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Mon, 14 June 2010 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93133A680C for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.171
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.569, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fi7RfjrlKIj0 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8C73A676A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b13ae0000071b2-5b-4c15cf4dcd4c
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BC.45.29106.D4FC51C4; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:42:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:42:20 +0200
Received: from [131.160.37.44] ([131.160.37.44]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:42:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4C15CF4C.8060506@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:42:20 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
References: <FF84A09F50A6DC48ACB6714F4666CC7465C6398042@ESESSCMS0354.eemea.ericsson.se> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FD736182@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FD736182@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2010 06:42:20.0875 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD4231B0:01CB0B8C]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] RFC 3680 extensibility
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:42:20 -0000

Hi,

yes, I agree with Dale that, technically, the system is ready to handle
interoperability even in presence of unknown stuff... but the question
here is whether or not we have a policy that regulates the creation of
such extensions.

XML namespaces are not covered by RFC 5727. However, Section 4.2 of RFC
3863 specifies rules for registering extensions to the basic presence
information data format:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3863#section-4.2

Considering the spirit of RFC 5727 and the example above, a potential
policy could be to register reg-event extensions with the IANA using the
Specification Required policy defined in RFC 5226. In this case, this
would mean that the extension would be defined in a 3GPP spec and
revised by an expert who would be designated by the RAI ADs. The expert
reviewer would make sure that new extensions do not overlap with current
IETF work.

In any case, we would welcome further comments on this issue.

Thanks,

Gonzalo


On 11/06/2010 7:06 PM, WORLEY, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
> 
> Section 5.1 of RFC 3680 (reg event package) says:
> 
> "Other elements from different namespaces MAY be present for the
> purposes of extensibility; elements or attributes from unknown
> namespaces MUST be ignored."
> 
> However, there is no policy regarding whether the definition of these "other namespaces" needs to be done in IETF - only that they must be ignored if not supported.
> 
> 3GPP has been discussing a couple of IMS specific cases, in which such extension elements/attributes could be used as solution (no decissions have been made yet), so the question is whether it would require IETF work.
> ________________________________________
> 
> The rule that unknown elements/attributes must be ignored covers you there, doesn't it?  If a non-3GPP system subscribes to an "extended" event package, it will ignore the extensions.
> 
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>