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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 20 December 2016 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@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 EEA8E12960E; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:49:39 -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 u2fVFZ4Nn4cp; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:49:39 -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 E16F1129432; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:49:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uBKMnaSt005888 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:49:38 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <148186064804.24550.3460112022117949321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9E288F8F-BD52-49D0-83B2-472F1B223127@nostrum.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <67748928-2d86-58d7-0cff-919470b67815@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:49:36 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9E288F8F-BD52-49D0-83B2-472F1B223127@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rOYUReMbV-plfUwjAuOW7moJ4Hk>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, dispatch@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 22:49:40 -0000

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.

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.

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?

/a

____
[1] We *might* or might *not* also decide to then do something about RFC 
4458 in this case, but that's a completely separate decision.