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

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 04:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
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 B03D61A1B49 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 2etk6eqsIsbc for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BF311A1AA8 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laar3 with SMTP id r3so44130518laa.3 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JoB5chPhnr+gDErdNWrEDSUeyBsunv2tHRkuL89gJQc=; b=FnlzEjEEmWBtjUOfMQwHvnolsOsx/bAQwRCjum0ek15cYSTGU21GzIfDc3lMLbfDoT 26PqTcJK4emXE/AQx3dwQlzbbJ/MjrYEjy6tuE/96lnikwsJSF70mwDcREQG7E/vMYnK bE32dyQo6S+nDyfLC92uh5x0IOdJ1Zh7o3sO8v/FNkAvLE7BzSvTKE41KkQY6LBL/FcH RAANoVX/KMJ9WyMvoEQbbvxCNoBBs62zKDfiOEqKjtzwPHAJdpXF0Tsc4GnyVflOUbDR 1yFL31bl1HPbPf9oxR82QJzeCDkVm4fK7n99ZbyKFpMk9r4MdaNyAWwCp74wQhQr5pII a4kQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.234.200 with SMTP id ug8mr7578357lbc.117.1433996987787; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.128.206 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR0601MB1657710F6E8509476D8C8373B7BD0@CY1PR0601MB1657.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY1PR0601MB1657710F6E8509476D8C8373B7BD0@CY1PR0601MB1657.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN70Qzh5AAjV2QoUA9qayDGo1LsSpXO_BsF=djfGiMGXFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Dan York <york@isoc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3cc6210efd205183671f7"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/mgC0sEkfsBZdsoOXoDflqRFzQig>
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Need guidance on how to progress draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:29:52 -0000

The DISPATCH process is fairly clearly described on the wiki:
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/trac/wiki

So, your option 1. as Robert points out isn't an option with the current
process.  Option 2 could happen as part of the DISPATCH process and as
others have noted seems the most likely outcome.  In the case of option 2,
the usual process is to ask whether there are any concerns on the DISPATCH
WG mailing list and get feedback from the WG participants.

The challenge of course is that we've deprecated P-headers and this would
be an exception and would have to be clearly documented as such, but I
would worry about this opening the floodgate for additional P-headers.  We
would need to be clear that this isn't the intent here.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Dan York <york@isoc.org> 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]
>
>
>  2. AD-SPONSORED - I can ask a friendly AD to help send this to the IESG;
>
>
>  3. INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSION - I can send this in to the independent stream
> editor.
>
>
>  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
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>