Re: [martini] Updated OLIVE and VERMOUTH documents

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Mon, 01 November 2010 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9AA3A69E8 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i7NeO9IRRpfA for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5DB3A69F9 for <martini@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:53:26 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:53:24 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:53:21 -0400
Thread-Topic: [martini] Updated OLIVE and VERMOUTH documents
Thread-Index: Act51IcB0b8xyO6oS26kBnshfzGXUg==
Message-ID: <F13D6CE2-AFCF-45BF-A11A-8B2CDE96A0B2@acmepacket.com>
References: <BLU104-DS500D69625B1913B8F9FB693450@phx.gbl> <859F4559-6609-4E3C-9786-B3FAE6BF428F@acmepacket.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA023554613F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA023554613F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] Updated OLIVE and VERMOUTH documents
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:53:30 -0000

Yup, they're just remnants.  
-hadriel



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

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org 
>> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
>> Sent: 29 October 2010 19:13
>> To: Bernard Aboba
>> Cc: martini@ietf.org
>> 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>
>> 	
>> 
>>