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

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 19 December 2016 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 5107E129C1D; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:40:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FvI3mqLnOH1V; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 843DD124281; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id w63so152486071oiw.0; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:40:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4qjdYHQesciJZ8rApZ5y5YYFzququpBbryzUpmtZ00Q=; b=sd8CjbiZcxV5EJ9ricXP+0cSLLsKIyGvu+S3g7GS3snu3/6q9LhLDZ4GGM9vFa0Yf7 HbP/UmWhvRejPc+E+INlrpr13sGxipQhQTP5VvRLTByvU6PKsfbbtSDEiN7u/wFzWkqD R8SJicpTRbvLT54D5L9twGWmemRUjOatSHoUYMbHL670TT2vz0N0Lio3OmKdiCIEhPTz gQ5OA75RPvZi2lA3MbxN+MOn7zRr9UqHDH8bljGClqMlkFb4/ZvsoQ5eP3Lmg4Hw/imV 8kOMQAQQ8vYLn5GVF3TlhjIcIgXOXsxeOefnX3eQfCZCND/5QO/hNc4zGQ/EEHVTZzgg uFZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4qjdYHQesciJZ8rApZ5y5YYFzququpBbryzUpmtZ00Q=; b=NpblYA04KUZOOT8dS7bC9cpip94bqMtqA63V7OJ3Nu4TX7edTp8fQi30f37twIf9Ob /RL5tHy4ZgT3skfGV619xurFZApgV7g+pOiax1wj8DYQOTX/LLJGryIGz4QJKvWoqCr0 i6batsF5yl7Iit53DEqUy9qmP6KNhOGFRXZDWug3ZTUv5e76X3j7q2LQ0hBsA/z8EuDq VV2dp3SWC6WcIo1Ayd6nGUT7sBE8ra/Zp2uCuiobHzJzgwVVFujkmTqIi1hOJ8lNT6yS pw2UonRcO1sxV+eUSvLQQGlXLDGdYR9Lh5X7lgLqMMeDe3ejYLbd9fWxJD3+QotAekYD LwZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLc4QurR+g3SWd78nQAUhZsQsjwfWsf3p8vJgjiH6TS5sCpE74Koqj5B7jV616aVW99NNVi7gLtI59s5A==
X-Received: by 10.202.87.5 with SMTP id l5mr9254445oib.17.1482169256861; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:40:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.26.9 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:40:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1BDDB9BA-E712-4DC8-9194-A16DF97F84D1@iii.ca>
References: <148186064804.24550.3460112022117949321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9E288F8F-BD52-49D0-83B2-472F1B223127@nostrum.com> <f0e5f66a-a7be-8d4e-a865-2ba4a27d6a3a@joelhalpern.com> <EF7BE2FF-410D-4C4A-8CAC-2282726E1B5E@nostrum.com> <50a163d3-0ca0-fdd0-7cb8-b09de0a5a5e2@joelhalpern.com> <1BDDB9BA-E712-4DC8-9194-A16DF97F84D1@iii.ca>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:40:56 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN6YfRCA76DLLGteBYZh6Q4_1EZordb7ynJkwQ17V5ag1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113df4560d68da0544066c7b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/owXjs86lxknT25TYT4u_Cca5VVo>
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, IETF <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: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:40:59 -0000

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> 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 <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> 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.)
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>