Re: [dispatch] Prorgessing draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-notification-02

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 09 February 2010 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.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 6FD3C3A73D8 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:56:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 M2fD6HbCOCv5 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EBC3A7221 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAJoUcUtAZnwN/2dsb2JhbADCXJgRgkKCEgQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,436,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="84939111"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2010 15:57:11 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.156] (dhcp-161-44-174-156.cisco.com [161.44.174.156]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o19FvBNq003262; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:57:11 GMT
Message-ID: <4B7185D8.1090807@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:57:12 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4B7127E7.8050403@ericsson.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE20AFB84EB@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE20AFB84EB@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mary Barnes <mbarnes@nortelnetworks.com>, DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Prorgessing draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-notification-02
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:56:06 -0000

I don't have a problem with it being IMS-specific.
I just want it to *say* that it is IMS-specific.

	Thanks,
	Paul

DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> At the moment, I think those of us looking at this from the 3GPP way of doing things do not see a more general application of this.
> 
> I do not have a problem with doing it more generally, but I guess the people who see a clear use case for that need to speak up and identify their use cases. 
> 
> Otherwise we end up designing a general event package that no one else ever uses. As opposed to the alternative of clearly stating the restricted use to a particular applicability, approving it, and moving on to something else with our restricted amount of resources.
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org 
>> [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:16 AM
>> To: DISPATCH
>> Cc: Mary Barnes
>> Subject: [dispatch] Prorgessing 
>> draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-notification-02
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> there have been a set of messages on the list providing 
>> comments on the draft below:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-n
>> otification-02
>>
>> As you know, the process for defining SIP event packages is 
>> documented here:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-04#se
>> ction-4.1
>>
>> Based on the feedback received, the authors need to decide 
>> whether they want to generalize their solution so that is is 
>> generally applicable to the public Internet or if they want 
>> to (further) clarify that this mechanism is intended to work 
>> only in IMS networks that provide a CDIV service.
>>
>> If the authors choose the latter approach, we (the DISPATCH 
>> chairs) will choose a "Designated Expert" who will check the 
>> draft against the 7 points described in the document above.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>> DISPATCH co-chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>