Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on IESG Changes in the -cs draft ? [Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt)]

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 8/14/13 4:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> I propose we remove the UUI and DTMF correlation options, and just leave it as the callerid one only for now.
>
> We can leave the ABNF with the current 'ext-mech' so that a future spec could define something else if need be, and the IANA registration procedures for doing so are already documented in this draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.

I don't think it makes sense to make such a change without some 
discussion whether the result will meet the needs that people have for 
the intended uses of this mechanism.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> -hadriel
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Miguel A. Garcia <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Hadriel:
>>
>> As far as I remember, the history of the three mechanisms is kind of fuzzy. At some point in time in the past, 3GPP hadn't decided on the architecture to enable CS calls over SIP/SDP, and they were looking into it. The mechanisms were envisioned by the authors and comments on the mailing list, and put at 3GPP's disposal for a choice.
>>
>> I concur with  your concern that just because we mandate to implement the 3 of them, these are not going to be implemented. I don't have any problem in removing from the draft those mechanisms that we envision they won't be used.
>>
>> /Miguel
>>
>> On 10/08/2013 1:28, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>> Wow.  I can kinda understand why they'd say that (interop reasons, presumably), but that's a big deal.  The 3 mechanisms are very different, with very different architectural and deployment implications.  I have a very hard time believing any of us would truly implement all three.  In fact, I don't truly believe anyone would.
>>>
>>> So... I hate to do this, but can the authors summarize the history of how we got 3 mechanisms to begin with, and who would really implement them all?
>>>
>>> Or to put it another way, instead of specifying all 3, would it be impossible to take a step back and reconsider the real motivating use-case (which as far as I know is 3GPP), and only specify the one they need/use?
>>>
>>> -hadriel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Flemming Andreasen
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Greetings MMUSIC
>>>>
>>>> As you can see per the below, the IESG approved the Circuit-Switched Bearers draft for publication, however before doing so, they requested a couple of changes. The resulting approved document can be found at
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of the changes introduced resulted in all 3 correlation mechanisms now being mandatory-to-implement (previously they were not):
>>>> <quote>
>>>>     Implementations MUST support the three correlation mechanisms
>>>>     specified in
>>>> Section 5.2.3.2, Section 5.2.3.3 and Section 5.2.3.4
>>>> ,
>>>>     and SHOULD include all supported mechanisms the initial Offer.
>>>>
>>>> </quote>
>>>> Since this is a non-trivial change that has not been discussed by the WG (and we know of at least one person having expressed concerns with it off-line), we are hereby solicting the WG participants for input on changes introduced as a result of the IESG review with a focus on the above. In doing so, please keep in mind that we are developing standards that work in the general Internet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following URL provides a diff-file showing the changes resulting from the IESG review:
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18.txt&url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comments are due by August 23 (two weeks from today)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -- Flemming (MMUSIC co-chair)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject:	[MMUSIC] Protocol Action: 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt)
>>>> Date:	Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:56:23 -0700
>>>> From:	The IESG
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> To:	IETF-Announce
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> CC:	mmusic chair
>>>> <[e-mail]>, mmusic mailing list <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IESG has approved the following document:
>>>> - 'Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension For Setting Audio and
>>>>     Video Media Streams Over Circuit-Switched Bearers In The Public
>>>>     Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)'
>>>>    (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21.txt) as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> This document is the product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
>>>> Working Group.
>>>>
>>>> The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.
>>>>
>>>> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Technical Summary
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> The document describes use cases, requirements, and protocol extensions
>>>> for using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer model for
>>>> establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers
>>>> in the Publich Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
>>>>
>>>> *Working Group Summary
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> The WG had some discussion around the format to use for E.164 numbers
>>>> and whether to align this with the existing definition in RFC 3108. The
>>>> RFC 3108 definition was seen as deficient and the WG agreed it was
>>>> better to align with relevant parts of the tel URI format defined in RFC
>>>> 3966, not least since SDP address types are defined in the context of a
>>>> particular network type, and hence RFC 3108 compatibility is not a
>>>> concern (the implication is that the "E164" address type may differ
>>>> between network types in SDP).
>>>>
>>>> *Document Quality
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> There are currently no known implementations of the draft, however the
>>>> draft is a dependency for 3GPP, so future implementations are expected.
>>>>
>>>> The document has received good overall review in the WG, some of which
>>>> resulted in changes to the detailed specification. The document has been
>>>> reviewed in detail several times, including of the last few versions.
>>>> The major contributors to these as well as earlier discussions are
>>>> listed in the Acknowledgements section of the document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Personnel
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
>>>> Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Miguel A. Garcia
>> [phone]
>> Ericsson Spain
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>