Re: Last Call results for draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

there was a fair amount of discussion around this document. If you had
comments on it, please have a look at the new revision and let us know
if there are concerns that still have not been addressed.

We intend to continue progressing this draft on April 28th (a week after
Scott's email below).

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 21/04/2010 7:30 PM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> The IETF Last Call draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config ended
> yesterday (it began 2010-03-23).
> 
>>> Abstract:
>>> This document defines procedures for how a SIP User Agent should
>>> locate, retrieve, and maintain current configuration information from
>>> a Configuration Service.
>>>
>>> This document is the product of the SIP Forum Technical Working Group
>>> User Agent Configuration Task Group.
> 
> There were a number of reviews on this list, including a substantial
> thread on whether or not there should be an alternative mechanism for
> updating configurations, because the SIP subscription required by draft
> 00 was seen to be more than was needed in some deployment environments.
> 
> On 04-15, an 01 draft was published that addressed that issue and a
> couple of editorial issues:
> 
>> Change Summary:
>>
>>       * The major change is to provide the Configuration Service a
>>         choice of whether to require the User Agent to create a change
>>         notice subscription or to require the User Agent to poll for
>>         changes using HTTP.  The User Agent is required to support both
>>         and use whichever mechanism the CS chooses.
>>
>>       * There is small correction to the expression of the U-NAPTR
>>         regular expression to make it exactly match the one in RFC 4848.
>>
>>       * The wording in the Scope section was changed from 'is free to'
>>         to 'MAY'.
>>
>> The specifics of the changes can be generated at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config/
> 
> The remaining issues that were raised in the discussion were questions
> regarding whether or not the level of detail in the draft on various
> protocol usages (such as which parameters must be used from DHCP) were
> appropriate (could have been replaced by pointers to other RFCs).  Since
> this document is intended to serve as a guide to implementing and
> deploying a comprehensive configuration service, the authors feel that
> carefully specifying the minimum usages is useful.
> 
> The authors believe that the 01 draft appropriately responds to all the
> issues raised during Last Call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>