Re: [martini] Updated OLIVE and VERMOUTH documents

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

Yup, they're just remnants.  
-hadriel



On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Elwell, John wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
>> Sent: 29 October 2010 19:13
>> To: Bernard Aboba
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [martini] Updated OLIVE and VERMOUTH documents
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for hosting these Bernard.
>> 
>> With regards to Olive:
>> The consensus from the last meeting in Maastricht was to 
>> split it out into two separate drafts: one on local numbers 
>> and one on email-style AoRs.  Olive is now just the local 
>> numbers part, and a separate draft will be submitted for 
>> email-style ones when the submission tool re-opens. (the 
>> draft is already done but it makes no real changes from the 
>> previous Olive other than just being only about email-style AoRs)
>> 
>> With regards to Vermouth:
>> The consensus form the last meeting in Maastricht was to 
>> define a new event package instead of hacking reg-event, and 
>> the general feedback was for the new event package to be for 
>> the list of provisioned numbers/names, without registration 
>> status and such.  
> [JRE] Although it states here "without registration state", there are some places in the document that seem to contradict this, unless I have misunderstood something. For example:
> - In Abstract:
> "Instead, it 
>   needs to provide an indication for the registration state of the 
>   prefix or digit portion it does know about. 
>   This document proposes to provide such information using a new 
>   Event-Package. "
> - In 4.3
> "Notifications are generated every time there is any change in 
>     the state of any of the registered contacts for the resource being 
>     subscribed to."
> 
> Are these just remnants of the previous draft that need to be changed?
> 
> John
> 
>> Therefore, the updated Vermouth draft is a 
>> straw-man towards that model.  It is NOT a complete proposal, 
>> because I think this actually requires a small design team or 
>> at least serious discussion of exactly what needs to be in 
>> the XML doc and what its structure and semantics should be.  
>> I will send an email to start a new thread on that topic. 
>> 
>> -hadriel
>> 
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 		At IETF 79, Hadriel will be presenting the 
>> OLIVE and VERMOUTH documents. 
>> 	Through a quirk in the system, updated versions of the 
>> document were submitted on time but not confirmed, so that 
>> they are not currently on the archive.
>> 	Instead, they can be obtained here:
>> 	
>> http://aboba.drizzlehosting.com/MARTINI/draft-kaplan-martini-v
>> ermouth-01.txt
>> 	
>> http://aboba.drizzlehosting.com/MARTINI/draft-kaplan-martini-w
>> ith-olive-02.txt
>> 	<ATT00001..c>
>> 	
>> 
>>