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

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

On 29 Feb 2016, at 8:45, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

> Ben Campbell wrote:
>> (+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,
>
> Ben: Thank you for considering my comments.  Inline, please.
>
>> 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.
>
> I suspect that your view as an AD may be more nuanced than mine, but I
> must admit that I am not entirely comfortable with limiting ART to
> "human communications", as would be implied by the text as currently
> written.

We did not mean to imply that ART was limited to human communication. 
That was intended to describe a subset of ART (the historically RAI 
work; primarily the clusters of SIP, SDP,and RTP related groups plus a 
few higher-in-the-stack groups such as RTCWEB).


>
> Certainly nothing in rfc3261 explicitly limits communications to 
> humans.
>
>> 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.)
>
> I believe that dropping the phrase "among humans" from the paragraph
> does not impact any aspect that at least I can observe, and may indeed
> have the benefit that no one in the future will claim that SIP cannot
> be used for m2m communications because of the limiting phrase.

Would it help to characterize these as "historically among humans"?

>
> Cheers,
>
> - vijay
> -- 
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [e-mail]
> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: 
> http://goo.gl/x3Ogq