Re: [RAI] Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft

["Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <[e-mail]>]

Adding the RAI distribution to this discussion per Robert's request.


Thanks Robert,

> That _redefines_ Call-Info even if it leaves the syntax the same.
> The definition for the header would be in _this_ document, not in 3261
> if you leave the ABNF like this.

I now understand your concern.
I would like to go with the option of removing the ABNF and just define the new value.


Do others see value with the second option:

> But if you do mess with the ABNF, make this change:
> 
> info-param = ( "purpose" EQUAL ( info-purpose-choices) ) / generic-param
> info-purpose-choices = "icon" / "info" / "card" / "ccmp " / token
> 
> so that  the _next_ draft that comes along that wants to add a purpose
> choice can simply say
> info-purpose-choices =/ "foo"
> 
> If you go down this path, you should also check with the community
> whether we should
> create an IANA registry for these choices. I don't think it's worth it,
> but there have been
> similar conversations where the rough consensus was to create one.


Thanks,
 Rifaat


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:29 PM
> To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo; [e-mail]; Mary Barnes; Alan Johnston
> Subject: Re: Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft
> 
> On 4/10/13 12:08 PM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> >> The one thing that sticks out is the complete redefinition of the
> >> Call-Info header syntax just to add a parameter
> >> to info-param.
> > The draft is not changing the syntax of the Call-Info header; the
> absoluteURI will be an XCON-URI and we are defining a new "ccmp" token
> to indicate that the URI supports ccmp.
> > Where do you see that we are redefining the syntax?
> The draft contains this:
> 
>     The following is the updated ABNF for the Call-Info header:
> 
>        Call-Info   =  "Call-Info" HCOLON info *(COMMA info)
>        info        =  LAQUOT absoluteURI RAQUOT *( SEMI info-param)
>        info-param  =  ( "purpose" EQUAL ( "icon" / "info"
>                       / "card" / "ccmp" / token ) ) / generic-param
> 
> That _redefines_ Call-Info even if it leaves the syntax the same.
> The definition for the header would be in _this_ document, not in 3261
> if you leave the ABNF like this.
> 
> At the very least, don't restate Call-Info and info. Redefine only
> info-param.
> 
> You could just define the value and not mess with the ABNF. That is the
> avenue I would recommend.
> 
> But if you do mess with the ABNF, make this change:
> 
> info-param = ( "purpose" EQUAL ( info-purpose-choices) ) / generic-param
> info-purpose-choices = "icon" / "info" / "card" / "ccmp " / token
> 
> so that  the _next_ draft that comes along that wants to add a purpose
> choice can simply say
> info-purpose-choices =/ "foo"
> 
> If you go down this path, you should also check with the community
> whether we should
> create an IANA registry for these choices. I don't think it's worth it,
> but there have been
> similar conversations where the rough consensus was to create one.
> 
> Also, it's unfortunate that this conversation isn't on a list. If we
> continue, please add a list to the distribution.
> I suggest [e-mail].
> 
> RjS
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Rifaat
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:35 AM
> >> To: Gonzalo Camarillo
> >> Cc: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat); [e-mail]; Mary Barnes; Alan
> Johnston
> >> Subject: Re: Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft
> >>
> >> We had not yet started. The next step is for the authors to request
> >> publication (when they believe it is ready),
> >> and you or Richard can start fresh with an initial AD review.
> >>
> >> I skimmed the version of the draft linked to below - I still don't
> >> expect controversy or much in the way of changes.
> >> The one thing that sticks out is the complete redefinition of the
> >> Call-Info header syntax just to add a parameter
> >> to info-param. It would be much better to find a way to use the
> >> Incremental Alternative (=/) production rule.
> >> If that's not possible the way Call-Info is currently defined, we
> should
> >> redefine it _once_ to make it possible.
> >> IIRC there are other things in flight that are touching Call-Info -
> you
> >> should make sure they're aligned.
> >>
> >> RjS
> >>
> >> On 4/10/13 3:01 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> >>> Hi Robert,
> >>>
> >>> the authors of the draft below just sent us the email below. They
> >>> mention you had agreed to AD sponsor it. What is the next step here
> so
> >>> that Richard or I can take this over?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Gonzalo
> >>>
> >>> On 09/04/2013 9:47 PM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:
> >>>> Gonzalo, Richard,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mary and I have been working on the following "Conference Focus
> >>>> Indicating CCMP Support" draft, which Robert agreed to AD sponsor a
> >>>> while back.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-
> >> indication/?include_text=1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The draft is simple and straightforward which was discussed on the
> >>>> DISPATCH mailing list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert Sparks, Alan Johnston, Cullen Jennings, and Adam Roach all
> >>>> reviewed it and provided feedback which was incorporated into the
> >> latest
> >>>> version of the draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alan Johnston is the document shepherd and he worked on the writeup
> >> for
> >>>> this draft.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now that Robert is no longer an AD, can one of you please sponsor
> >> this
> >>>> draft instead?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Rifaat
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>