Re: [dispatch] Need guidance on how to progress draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 6/10/15 2:06 PM, Dan York wrote:
>
> DISPATCH participants,
>
>
> I could use some help/guidance about how to move my 
> now-seemingly-ancient P-Charge-Info draft forward. The draft is at:
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info-05
>
>
> Way back in 2008, I first submitted the draft to the SIPPING WG. My 
> goal was simply to *document the existing usage* of the P-Charge-Info 
> SIP header per the then-relevant RFC 3427 so that the header could be 
> listed in the IANA registry of SIP parameters at:
>
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/sip-parameters.xhtml#sip-parameters-2 
>
>
>
> My employer at the time, Voxeo, was (and still is) a strong user of 
> the header and encouraged me to document it so that others could use 
> the header within private networks.  As an IETF participant and 
> SIP advocate, I personally wanted to document P-Charge-Info so that 
> perhaps people could find it and use that header instead of creating 
> yet another private header.  Tolga Asveren of Sonus Networks joined on 
> very early in the process because Sonus was (and presumably still is) 
> also actively using the header.  Lots of other people  chimed in along 
> the way.
>
>
> After an initial flurry of commentary and changes on the SIPPING list 
> from 2008-2010, there's a longer story of why it took so long... there 
> was the RFC 3427bis process which became RFC 5727... life and job 
> changes... much more...
>
>
> Anyway, at this point in 2015 I just want to move the document along 
> and get it published so that the header can be registered and, quite 
> honestly, so that I can stop renewing the document every 6 months. 
>  Given that I still get inquiries about this header from time to time 
> and that it is still being used, I feel a certain responsibility to 
> just "get this done" rather than simply abandoning the draft.
>
>
> From what I know, there are three ways I can move this forward to 
> publication:
>
>
> 1. DISPATCH approval - this WG can approve the draft and send to the 
> IESG; [1]
>
This is not what DISPATCH is designed to do.
>
>
> 2. AD-SPONSORED - I can ask a friendly AD to help send this to the IESG;
>
This is the path I think this document should take.
>
>
> 3. INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSION - I can send this in to the independent 
> stream editor.
>
You could do this. Diversion went this way to support the 
diversion-history-info work.
I would prefer, though, that the document take path 2, and pursue 
publication as an IETF document.
>
> Am I correct?  And if so, what would any of you suggest as the 
> simplest path to checking this off as done?
>
>
> Comments on the actual draft are of course also welcome, with the 
> reminder that the aim of the draft was and is to document existing 
> usage rather than to create a new header, etc.  (Because if it was to 
> create a new header, the "P-" would be removed, etc.)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
>
> [1] And yes, I do realize there is actually a 4th path which is that 
> DISPATCH could "dispatch" this draft off to some other WG and I could 
> then bring it through *that* WG. And if that's the best path I'm glad 
> to do that, too... I just want to get this finished.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch