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.) > >> > >> > > > >
- Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service… Joel Halpern
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Ben Campbell
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Ben Campbell
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Cullen Jennings
- RE: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… marianne.mohali
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Mary Barnes
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Ben Campbell
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-ca… Adam Roach
- Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-ca… Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-ca… Robert Sparks
- Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-ca… Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-ca… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- RE: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… marianne.mohali
- Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-ser… Ben Campbell