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

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

as I stated in my previous email, Paul's description of the situation
below is accurate.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Anders,
> 
> It was also my assumption going in that this is potentially a problem 
> area of general interest.
> 
> But the existing solution (as best I understand it) is wed to a 
> particular system architecture - not one that we would likely wish to 
> see enshrined in a more general standard.
> 
> To get beyond that we would need somebody who is interested in doing the 
> work to get something more general. I'm not seeing anybody stand up to 
> do that. (I know I don't have the time to do it.)
> 
> Lacking that, I see no justification to block their getting their event 
> package as long as it is suitably scoped.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> Anders Kristensen wrote:
>> IIUC the IMS use case (or one of them) is that users may configure call 
>> forwarding services and forget that they've done so. The CDIV feature 
>> then allows them to learn of calls being forwarded and take corrective 
>> action. This is not at all IMS specific - the same use case can be said 
>> to exist in non-IMS deployments.
>>
>> I suspect addressing this problem in a general way is no more work than 
>> to do it in an IMS specific way but would make for a better standard. 
>> What's more, if I'm right and this is inherently not an IMS specific 
>> problem then the solution is likely to be picked up and used in other 
>> contexts regardless of whatever stern wording is on the front page of 
>> the RFC.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anders
>>
>> On 2/9/2010 8:53 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>> I think that is a given and if that is the way to go, I'm sure we'll 
>>> all make sure the words on the front cover go that way.
>>>
>>> But there seemed to be some prior responses trying to take potential 
>>> use cases beyond that, and I wanted to make sure that if they existed, 
>>> they were explicitly declared.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:57 PM
>>>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>>>> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo; DISPATCH; Mary Barnes
>>>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Prorgessing
>>>> draft-avasarala-dispatch-comm-div-notification-02
>>>>
>>>> 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: [e-mail]
>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dispatch mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>