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

"Ben Campbell" <> Tue, 20 December 2016 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48574129422; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ai44zt_ZDbnX; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BFCD129406; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: "Ben Campbell" <>
To: "Adam Roach" <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:03:06 -0600
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5318)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.