Re: [RAI] Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft

Hi,

the RAI ADs have been asked to AD sponsor this draft. Let us know if you
object to us doing that at this point.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 16/04/2013 6:56 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> WFM
> 
> On 4/14/13 9:51 AM, Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat) wrote:
>> I have submitted a new version that removed the ABNF and changed the
>> IANA section to address both the Call-Info and the URI registration.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-03
>>
>> Please, take a look and let me know if you have any comments.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>   Rifaat
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
>>> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 9:01 AM
>>> To: Dale R. Worley
>>> Cc: rai@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [RAI] Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft
>>>
>>> Hi Dale,
>>>
>>> As Paul suggested in a previous email, I will follow what you did with
>>> your draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Rifaat
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dale R. Worley [mailto:worley@ariadne.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:08 PM
>>>> To: Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)
>>>> Cc: rjsparks@nostrum.com; rai@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [RAI] Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support draft
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Shekh-Yusef, Rifaat (Rifaat)" <rifatyu@avaya.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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"
>>>>
>>>> In abstract, I think I prefer the "second option".  But it would take
>>>> more bureaucratic work to implement it.
>>>>
>>>> However, draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-02, proposes creating a
>>>> registry for the predefined values of the purpose parameter of
>>>> Call-Info.  I'm not sure it's needed, as there are currently only 4
>>>> RFCs/drafts that are relevant.  But if a new registry is defined, the
>>>> document that defines it must initialize the registry with all of the
>>>> currently defined values, and the current section 4.2 only lists the
>>>> value "ccmp".  And it would need to update the row for "Call-Info" in
>>>> "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" to reference the new
>>>> registry, rather than the collection of RFCs.
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RAI mailing list
>>> RAI@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAI mailing list
>> RAI@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> 
> 