Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

(+ART ADs)

On 26 Feb 2016, at 14:43, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

> Minor:
> - S1, "Other RAI working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not
>  change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other
>  technologies for interactive communication among humans."
>
>  Are we intentionally limiting interactive communications only to
>  "humans"?  I would suspect that this would be limiting, no?  A
>  bunch of SIP SUBS/NOTs happen between automaton, or machines.
>  Surely we don't want to exclude these in the future.  My suggestion
>  would be to simply take out the phrase "among humans".

Hi Vijay,

Actually, the "human" part was intentional. RFC5727 was primarily about 
technologies for human communication. Certainly some of those 
technologies may be dual use (e.g. XMPP, SIP-Events), but the reason 
they were historically in the RAI area is that the primary use cases 
under consideration involved humans, or supported those that did. A 
SUB/NOT protocol that was primarily intended for machine-to-machine use 
probably would not have ended up in RAI.

Those boundaries are more blurred now since the merger of APP and RAI 
into ART. But 5727 was primarily about the SIP change process. That text 
in section 1 is intended to describe the scope of 5727, and in section 3 
to describe the subset of ART wgs that historically would have been 
considered RAI.

(I do note the use of RAI that probably needs to be fixed, or at least 
put into past tense.)

Thanks!

Ben.