Re: [RAI] Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft

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

I think that if we are to revise the ABNF, then we need a separate document for that. If there is enough interest, I would be willing to work on that document.
For this document, I prefer to go with option 3.

Regarding the IANA registry, we had a similar discussion on the DISPATCH mailing list in the context of the XMPP work, and the conclusion was that we did not need a registry:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04628.html

Are you saying that we need a registry *if* we revise the ABNF?

Regards,
 Rifaat



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:52 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RAI] Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft
> 
> On 4/11/13 1:50 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:
> > Adding the RAI distribution to this discussion per Robert's request.
> 
> IMO RAI isn't the best place for this discussion.
> I fear that some people who care won't see this.
> The right place to have the discussion of restructuring the ABNF for the
> info-param is sipcore. But I don't want to cross post, so lets reach
> some conclusion to this thread, and then if it becomes a sipcore concern
> we can post the conclusion there for confirmation.
> 
> I see three ways to handle this, two of which have already been
> mentioned:
> 
> 1) revise the ABNF so in the future it can be extended without
>     further redefinition:
> 
>     info-param = info-purpose-param / generic-param
>     info-purpose-param = "purpose" EQUAL info-purpose-choices
>     info-purpose-choices = "icon" / "info" / "card" / token
>     info-purpose-choices =/ "ccmp"
> 
> 2) revise the ANBF to just have the choices be just "token"
>     and add an IANA registry for values.
> 
> 3) just work around the existing ABNF in a cleaner way:
> 
>     info-param =/ "purpose" EQUAL "ccmp"
> 
> Which to do depends on how much work we want to go through now and how
> many new values we anticipate in the future. In this case, where the
> syntax isn't too complex and the number of new values is likely to be
> small I think (3) may be the simplest.
> 
> The choice between (1) and (2) depends on whether we want to spend
> cycles deciding what the criteria ought to be for adding new values in
> the future.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> > 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RAI mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai