Re: [dispatch] Update on draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dale,

Responses inline below [MB].

Regards,
Mary.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) <[e-mail]>wrote:

> From: Mary Barnes [[e-mail]]
> > One is the "allowing" of the Reason header in responses.  The drafts
> > (i.e., abstracts) posit that the document(s) "specifies and formally
> > permits the use of the Reason Header field in SIP responses..."  which
> > implies normative changes to RFC 3326 and there is some RFC 2119
> > language in the first draft (although not in caps).  This leads one to
> > believe that this work intends to Update RFC 3326.  As Gonzalo clearly
> > laid out, we had the long debate as to whether RFC 3326 already allows
> > the reason header in responses.  So, if we want this to be an
> > informational document, it needs to be clear in that document that
> > this does not make any normative changes to RFC, but rather describes
> > the use of Reason in responses.  And, it would seem that in the latter
> > case, examples would be helpful, which leads to the second part.
>
> In regard to this point, I am in favor of allowing Reason in responses
> generally.  That does support the specific use cases, but will also be
> useful in other circumstances.
>
> Since, strictly speaking, RFC 3326 does not permit Reason in responses,
> this would have to be a normative change to RFC 3326.
>
> > The folks that are in support of this draft seem to really be in
> > support of the enabling of the functionality that is in your second
> > draft.
>
> I am also in favor of using Reason with "Q.850" values as a solution
> to the problems discussed in the drafts.  Alone, that would be an
> informative document, as Q.850 values are already specified by RFC
> 3326.
>
> > Cullen laid out the past concerns raised about the solution in
> > his email on the encapsulation versus translation discussion.
>
> Could you give us a pointer to that e-mail?  It's not recent enough
> for me to easily find it, but you seem to know where it is.  If I
> could read it, it would clarify the situation for me.
>
[MB]  Cullen posted the email on Jan 19th:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03196.html
[/MB]

>
> For the record, it appears that 12 people are counted as being in
> favor of this proposal: the 9 listed in Cullen's e-mail, Bruno
> Chatras, LiLi Yang, and James Calme.  Not to mention the 3GPP industry
> collectively, whatever weight we wish to assign them.  Who is against
> this proposal?
>
[MB] The question I have is what do you mean by "this proposal" - i.e., I
had asked the folks that responded +1 exactly what they were in favor of?
1) Reason header in responses - i.e., Update RFC 3326
2) Solving the use cases in the same manner as has been done for other SDOs
3) Both 1) and 2)

The reason I ask is because Roland had suggest that only this document needs
progressing and that document focuses on item 1 (although it duplicates
requirements from the other document below):
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses/

The other document describes the use of the Reason header for specific use
cases and per my email, there has been debate as to whether the solution is
the right approach:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jesske-dispatch-req-reason-in-responses-02.txt
(this is really a requirements use case and solution document that
takes
advantage of the changes defined by 1)

[/MB]

>
> Dale
>