Re: [salud] AD review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12 (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 11 April 2014 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DC81A0734 for <>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AN4kiQyXxf53 for <>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:17]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5D01A072A for <>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id ohcP1n00817dt5G5AjLkhg; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:20:44 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id ojLh1n0031KKtkw3ZjLh3o; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:20:43 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s3BJKeY2012896; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:20:40 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s3BJKelZ012894; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:20:40 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:20:40 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: (Dale R. Worley)
To: Richard Barnes <>
In-reply-to: <> (
References: <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1397244044; bh=IBtw/Lm99NNvlnG8ckqOPWoLcgDTCeAb0c2CLF6WyOg=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=J+rTdT2UKcQickq8GgDFeJwNg4BF6cc73aLIm6wZHKarIO1jU8WfOWikySHzAVd9n /YXhT9kvrhVkdixqASsayxoC5zI15VyM/kpWstMk/qiQPdNtz6SSiE8P3DS1q8pY9h oHJ+X0jtw3fvliW8Pdb2WEwKxboMGlX2gBNvMFSBfLpL9IOzV5j8JrV6lg9D6LqPMS Er4q9KZmr0nY6/IclwBiBZzB0WdoJqdD8n+V7b8SFCTiY3/GssF5OZUaZkLbqBwpX/ gyuyXttyCP65JU9X1fP61tJh4cpMrD4s3RLZkoo8sgNFO+OEXTQ4ybB/pC0/OoTRBo sEzL621urtfWA==
Subject: Re: [salud] AD review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:20:48 -0000

> From: Richard Barnes <>
> I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF LC.  Thanks for a
> clearly written document!  I especially liked the style of the Terminology
> section.  I've requested LC, and a few comments to address along with any
> LC comments are below.

[as chair]

Many thanks!  

[as an author]

We will review your comments carefully.

I'll start off with the one I can give an immediate answer to:

> It's not clear to me why you need all the date machinery in provider IDs.
> This things are ephemeral -- why not just use the org that has the domain
> now?

The problem is that these are URNs and so their meanings, once set,
have to be fixed for all time.  That point was raised vividly by the
URN people.  Adding the date to a domain name gives it a
time-invariant meaning.

And though the "visible" use of an alert-info URN is transient, from
the caller to the callee, both the caller and the callee keep a list
of the alert-info URNs that they understand and the meanings that they
attach to them.  And this is telephony equipment, which can have a
lifetime of over a decade.  So you don't want the expiration of some
company's domain registration to require that all the phones that know
of their private extension URNs to have to be reprogrammed.