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

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
[MB] I don't have a problem to make this document PS, but then I think we
need to revise 4458 as PS (in which case I hope we don't reopen the can of
worms around that one as it's something that I don't think we'd approve
today). [/MB]


>
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > On 12/15/16 11:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you think it makes sense to make some new values for “cause” into a
> proposed standard when “cause” 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.)
> >>
> >> Right now, the situation is a standards-action registry with a
> informational entry. That’s clearly broken, but I’m not sure that _this_
> draft is the place to fix it.
> >>
> >> Also, if it makes any difference—even there there was discussion in
> dispatch, this is not a dispatch work item.
> >>
> >>> Yours,
> >>> Joel
> >>>
> >>> PS: It would seem that WG discussion of that sort is something we
> would like to see in Shepherd writeups.
> >>
> >> There’s two paragraphs on the subject in section (1) of the shepherd
> writeup :-)  (but it wasn’t a working group discussion per se.)
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Ben.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/16 11:28 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >>>> Hi Joel,
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Ben.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 15 Dec 2016, at 21:57, Joel Halpern wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> >>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.)
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>