IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kyzivat-dispatch-trs-call-info-purpose-00.txt

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 23 January 2015 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8FF1A8F3E for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 6BbU1MtzmfMX for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E7951A1A3C for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.108]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id jFkc1p0082LrikM01FkcnR; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:44:36 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by resomta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id jFkc1p0021KKtkw01FkcLZ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:44:36 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0N3iZC9004674; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:44:35 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id t0N3iZTT004671; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:44:35 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <54B54462.8060308@alum.mit.edu> (pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:44:35 -0500
Message-ID: <87zj9ayxcs.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1421984676; bh=hZKN7Ah2da9T7DBplohpxJJ/JmDeXJMYz5Q+L67LLkk=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=hAlwTyESopnCCi7WqUbTg52lZ13/LmXvdnFpuQx2xcgm2gAyrUCuBBQEqYMJf+dIf MAHtyV27LPQzX8cq9lBluikgWoxSnqhrY3D8u7HMg+P6kDvQ8OnrAMXK/tnIPdGM9H o7jb9+FBYjGyYK+7rNctk3ZzLbg1l6XxJDjEMs7V9kdbqXly+vnnS8BVjQYKpgzffC 6HPqAXjPyYIGPNCOhl+8k4DKG/ZG/BA6nLu7Tfw5ciyV6qZdAPg6N0waMvsK1UKpq/ f1/JJZg+FirNXOiWoY9YxMowXUp3I99ui7Iocsy00vRd4XxWr5hX4UQXDrH8SrmjKY i2SkBSYkRpSSA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Trt6rA2e7n-jg3HZ1wZuP0ujaww>
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kyzivat-dispatch-trs-call-info-purpose-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:44:40 -0000

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> I have just submitted a new draft (see below) that needs to be 
> dispatched. It defines a new Call-Info 'purpose' parameter value.
>
> The intended audience for this draft is quite limited - to the providers 
> of the Video Relay Service in the US, and to the FCC that sponsors that 
> service. The Intro section explains this.

The use of "original IP address" as the means to identify the caller
seems rather odd to me.  But I assume that this is what the FCC
specifies, and they have good reason to do this.  Given that:

Should the 'purpose' value be "original-ip-address"?

Should the draft specify that the URI must have the syntax "sip:" +
IPv4address?  It doesn't specify that now, although the usage has that
restriction.  What about IPv6 addresses?  Or should we leave no
restrictions on the URI to allow future improvements, and just note that
the current practice is to use a very limited syntax?

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email