Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <50a163d3-0ca0-fdd0-7cb8-b09de0a5a5e2@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:11:09 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BDDB9BA-E712-4DC8-9194-A16DF97F84D1@iii.ca>
References: <148186064804.24550.3460112022117949321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <9E288F8F-BD52-49D0-83B2-472F1B223127@nostrum.com>
 <f0e5f66a-a7be-8d4e-a865-2ba4a27d6a3a@joelhalpern.com>
 <EF7BE2FF-410D-4C4A-8CAC-2282726E1B5E@nostrum.com>
 <50a163d3-0ca0-fdd0-7cb8-b09de0a5a5e2@joelhalpern.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X-7DhGwCebvKkqNUvp6JJpl3pkE>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>,
 IETF <ietf@ietf.org>,
 draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number.all@ietf.org
Precedence: list


> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> At this point I will defer to the relevant ADs.

+1 on that :-)

> As far as I can tell, although the entry was created by an =
Informational RFC, the registry still claims that it is standards track.
> And since this document is defining behavior, it behaves more like a =
standards track document than an Informational one.
>=20
> But it is up to you folks.  In teh end, all I can do is raise the =
question, not decide it :-)

So the registry takes PS to change it. And by the current SIP rules, I =
suspect (not sure) that an update to 4458 would also have to be PS. So =
really not sure how one gets around this not being PS.=20


>=20
> Yours,
> Joel
>=20
> On 12/15/16 11:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> I see your point about this adding a value to the entry created by =
RFC 4458.
>>> Is there a reason this can not simply be PS?  The fact that 4458 is =
Informational does not, as far as I can tell, justify continuing the =
error.  While this is for a 3GPP usage, it appears to have been reviewed =
by the Dispatch WG sufficiently to justify PS.
>>> One could argue that there is a down-ref issue,
>>> but the fact that the field is in a standards-track required =
registry would seem to make that a moot point.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Do you think it makes sense to make some new values for =E2=80=9Ccause=E2=
=80=9D into a proposed standard when =E2=80=9Ccause=E2=80=9D itself is =
informational?  That seems like a pretty big downref issue, as such =
issues go. (For the record, I could be convinced to re-run this LC as =
PS, but I suspect that would lead to objections in the opposite =
direction.)
>>=20
>> Right now, the situation is a standards-action registry with a =
informational entry. That=E2=80=99s clearly broken, but I=E2=80=99m not =
sure that _this_ draft is the place to fix it.
>>=20
>> Also, if it makes any difference=E2=80=94even there there was =
discussion in dispatch, this is not a dispatch work item.
>>=20
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>=20
>>> PS: It would seem that WG discussion of that sort is something we =
would like to see in Shepherd writeups.
>>=20
>> There=E2=80=99s two paragraphs on the subject in section (1) of the =
shepherd writeup :-)  (but it wasn=E2=80=99t a working group discussion =
per se.)
>>=20
>> Thanks!
>>=20
>> Ben.
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 12/15/16 11:28 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>=20
>>>> Thanks for the comments. There has been a fair amount of discussion
>>>> about the status of the draft. The situation is clearly not =
optimal, and
>>>> I welcome input on how to straighten it out.
>>>>=20
>>>> The rational so far has been that this draft updates RFC 4588, =
which is
>>>> informational. It adds some additional values and related semantics =
for
>>>> the "cause" parameter from 4588. It does not register new =
parameters;
>>>> rather it adds itself as a reference in the existing "cause"
>>>> registration. This is mainly a courtesy to readers. (There is no
>>>> sub-registry for "cause" parameter values.) We might could get by
>>>> without that change, since in a perfect world people following the =
IANA
>>>> reference to 4588 would notice the "Updated by..." tag.
>>>>=20
>>>> The gotcha is that RFC 4588 would not be possible as an =
informational
>>>> today; it would not have standing to register the "cause" =
parameter. But
>>>> at the time it was published, there was a lack of clarity around =
the
>>>> "standards action" policy for the SIP URI parameters registry. =
Making
>>>> the new values from _this_ draft standards track, when the =
parameter
>>>> itself is not, doesn't seem appropriate. We had some discussion =
about
>>>> whether we should promote 4588 to PS, but there was not consensus =
to do
>>>> so when it was published, and I don't see reason to expect that to =
have
>>>> changed.
>>>>=20
>>>> This draft is primarily intended to meet a need in 3GPP, where I
>>>> understand they are effectively already doing this. Would it help =
to
>>>> more tightly scope this as "Here's something 3GPP is doing..." =
rather
>>>> than as a general mechanism?
>>>>=20
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>=20
>>>> Ben.
>>>>=20
>>>> On 15 Dec 2016, at 21:57, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Major:
>>>>>   This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies =
new
>>>>> behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info. =
 I
>>>>> am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC.  It =
looks
>>>>> like it either Proposed Standard or experimental.  Yes, I see that =
RFC
>>>>> 4458, which this updates is Informational.  But just because we =
did it
>>>>> wrong before does not make that behavior correct now.  In addition =
to
>>>>> my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC =
3969
>>>>> and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made =
by
>>>>> a standards track RFC.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Minor:
>>>>>  Given our emphasis on IPv6 over IPv4, would it not make sense for
>>>>> the examples to use IPv6 addresses?  (Inspired by the Id-Nits =
alert.)
>>=20
>>=20
>=20