Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 15 July 2010 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D602B3A691D; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zCWUtNS+JFM; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F353A681E; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMThPkyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACfZHGkQpsJhSQEg36EUg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,209,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="267714921"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2010 17:27:34 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6FHRXV2023154; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:27:33 GMT
Subject: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <14C85D6CCBE92743AF33663BF5D24EBA071B8FE3@gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:27:32 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B686782-AE50-4DF4-B09E-DF8A770DF184@cisco.com>
References: <4C28F980.3040702@ericsson.com> <AANLkTinf6-mtUKbdtw0p2j0xJQPBr4S-XCiimSNoKNdC@mail.gmail.com><0010F1C2-2436-474D-BC1C-05AFC8A9E4C5@cisco.com><4C3D7496.8020905@gmail.com> <71EA364F-6D56-45B3-BB9C-9C9AE1E1266C@cisco.com> <14C85D6CCBE92743AF33663BF5D24EBA071B8FE3@gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
To: "DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)" <md3135@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gcamaril@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:27:25 -0000

OK - that removes a large part of the issues I raised. Let me see if I can propose some text that we could all agree on.

Cullen

PS - Just to be clear these emails are all in my individual contributor role. That was clear when it was IETF LC comment but given this is all cross posted to dispatch, just wanted to be clear.



On Jul 15, 2010, at 8:07 AM, DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS) wrote:

> Cullen the answer to your question is No.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:06 AM
> To: Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: DISPATCH list; IESG IESG; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Call Control UUI for SIP (cuss)
> 
> 
> I don't think this resolves the issue. The issue is if this information
> is used for a call control. Basically do proxies need to be able to look
> at this to make decision about what they are going to do. We at least
> need a Yes/No answer to this question from the proponents of this work
> and the charter to make that clear. 
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> thanks for your comments on the charter proposal. Per the comments
>> received, we will modify bullet 5 as follows so that it is clearer:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> 5. SIP elements may need to apply policy about passing and screening
>>  the information.
>> 
>> NEW:
>> 5. SIP elements may need to apply policy about passing and filtering
>>  UUI.  The included application, encoding, semantics, and content
>>  information will allow endpoint or intermediary SIP elements to
>>  allow or block UUI based on the type and originator, not based on
>>  the actual UUI data, which may be end-to-end encrypted by the
>>  application.
>> 
>> Further discussions on this topic should happen on the mailing list of
>> this WG.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Gonzalo
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html