Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 20 December 2016 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48574129422; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ai44zt_ZDbnX; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BFCD129406; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uBKN37w2007123 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:03:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:03:06 -0600
Message-ID: <DDFC7716-A511-4B2D-B2F6-A39B2EF54F36@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <67748928-2d86-58d7-0cff-919470b67815@nostrum.com>
References: <148186064804.24550.3460112022117949321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9E288F8F-BD52-49D0-83B2-472F1B223127@nostrum.com> <67748928-2d86-58d7-0cff-919470b67815@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5318)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o6fzSvz8k_KVcuRAEtaDGna1P00>
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number.all@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:03:10 -0000

On 20 Dec 2016, at 16:49, Adam Roach wrote:

> On 12/15/16 22:28, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't think that's true. We're talking about a registry established 
> by RFC 3969, which says:
>
>   "SIP and SIPS URI parameters and values for these parameters MUST be
>    documented in a standards-track RFC in order to be registered by
>    IANA."
>
> ...and...
>
>   "For the purposes of this registry, the parameter for which IANA
>    registration is requested MUST be defined by a standards-track 
> RFC."
>
> These are not ambiguous statements. We just botched our communication 
> with IANA.

For the record, I did not say the RFC was ambiguous. I said "we had a 
lack of clarity". I think having one policy listed in IANA and another 
in the RFC counts. I offer as evidence of said lack of clarity the fact 
that RAI got things wrong with 4458 (My typo of it as 4588 above 
upthread couldn't help, either) :-)
>
> But I think we can do the right thing here without going back and 
> fixing all of the issues with our ancestral documents. I mean, sure, 
> maybe we should clean that up too, but I don't see the value in 
> blocking new work on doing so.
>
> In terms of publishing draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number, 
> I think there are two reasonable paths forward:
>
> The first would be forming consensus that the two statements I quote 
> from 3969 above -- and the reinforcing statement in 5727 -- were all 
> incorrect, and that we want to explicitly (i.e., in a new document) 
> reverse those statements and update the corresponding registration 
> policy. Then, we publish -mohali- as informational.[1]
>
> The second would be implicitly accepting established consensus around 
> this registry, and consequently changing -mohali- to PS.

I think a potential third option is to consider whether -mohali- really 
needs to modify the registry. (I'm not saying it doesn't--I'm saying we 
should think about it.)

>
> Rather than figuring out which of these is easier (clearly, the second 
> is less work), I think the real question here is: do we think we got 
> the registration policy for SIP URI parameters wrong?
>

Keep in mind that the registry is not the only concern mentioned so far. 
Both 4458 and -mohali- define protocol. Reviewers have objected to that 
as well.