Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 06 January 2014 16:54 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CDA1AE0F7 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:54:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.065
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23wo-WZKEyiJ for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0E21AE069 for <salud@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:54:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.28]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Ad1U1n0030cZkys54guVwM; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:54:29 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id AguV1n00B3ZTu2S3WguVKh; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:54:29 +0000
Message-ID: <52CADFC5.7060100@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:54:29 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com>
References: <201311201944.rAKJiS7d5355422@shell01.TheWorld.com> <528D41F2.8090200@alum.mit.edu> <CACWXZj39wsahY-=VN1e7a=wLK_55H=oVYkeSbRrUce+jMzH_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACWXZj39wsahY-=VN1e7a=wLK_55H=oVYkeSbRrUce+jMzH_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1389027269; bh=t0++voq14XtWBIZE4slDsj5j/2W3HYvs2WkXcnrPTpg=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=at2sCW315SZNKtWy99qkYfF5Y+LKpFDLei6c4//+6NCZ+DNytPBfsZuHXZs5BXasM KZvElDvKupbG7TDv4u0bbjBrGG9nL+iI0+0IfMOhE9wq/SWEHfp2TRhfT5VhKg7HOa dbbtIkNWRRNPgA4Ue0AVFGhiyAy7JJ0rde6N8cCwSmi8Xzvor9VX+1D/86QdkLN79b 6Gqiyea8G/rjOsO6jZs12yDZe1W7rPvJDyZ2EvJJu6VDcR6PdXfvjRmXoTWdxl7Kvs L9I/lWeJqWyTTKfscFGG8V5mQWWzHwLcsINpKKP0KYitxbQrjSFUqRHkdPKVrTmB8T R+hHg5WSgNXUQ==
Cc: "salud@ietf.org" <salud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:54:40 -0000
Laura, This all sounds good to me. I would like to have Dale also verify it. Thanks, Paul On 1/6/14 3:37 AM, Laura Liess wrote: > > Paul, > > Thank you for the comments. Please see inline. > > 2013/11/21 Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu > <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> > > > > Section 4: > > Registration date: TBD > > How is this to be filled in? Should there be instructions to the editor? > > > From the RFC 3406 Annex B.2, my understanding is that we should send > the registration request to IANAafter IESG approves the draft for > publication. > > I would replace the "TBD" in the Registration date by <when submitted>, > as shown in the Annex B.1 "Example Template" of the RFC 3406. Is this > OK for you? > > Text from the RFC 3406: > > B.2 Registration steps in practice > > The key steps for registration of informal or formal namespaces > typically play out as follows: > > > .............................. > > Formal NID: > > 1. Write an Internet-Draft describing the namespace and include > the registration template, duly completed. Be sure to include > "Namespace Considerations", "Community Considerations" and > "IANA Considerations" sections, as described in Section 4.3. > > 2. Send the Internet-Draft to the I-D editor, and send a copy to > urn-nid@apps.ietf.org <mailto:urn-nid@apps.ietf.org> for technical review. > > 3. Update the Internet-Draft as necessary from comments, and > repeat steps 2 and 3 as needed. > > 4. Send a request to the IESG to publish the I-D as an RFC. The > IESG may request further changes (published as I-D revisions) > and/or direct discussion to designated working groups, area > experts, etc. > > 5. If the IESG approves the document for publication as an RFC, > send a request to IANA to register the requested NID. > > > > > > > > Section 9.2: > > The examples are a but hard to follow. Specifically, each example > describes the signals at each source and the winner, but when doing > so it never mentions which signals (Signal 1, Signal 2, ...) - it > instead identifies by alert urn. Since to point is to determine the > signal to be rendered, this seems obscure. For example the following > would seem clearer to me for 9.2.1: > > If the device receives <urn:alert:source:internal>, then the > sort is: > > Signals at source:internal: (this is, first place) > > Signal 2 > > Signals at source: (tied for second place) > > Signal 3 > Signal 4 > Signal 5 > > And these signals are excluded from the set: > > Signal 1 > > So in this example, the sorting algorithm properly gives first place > to Signal 2. > > Section 10: > > A SIP UA MAY add a URN or multiple URNs to the Alert-Info header > field in a SIP request or a provisional 1xx response (excepting > a 100 > response) when it needs to provide additional information about the > call or about the provided service. > > The above only talks about adding *to* an Alert-Info, not the adding > *of* an Alert-Info. I suggest: > > A SIP UA MAY include one or more Alert-Info header fields, > containing one or more URNs in a SIP request or a provisional 1xx > response (excepting a 100 response) when it needs to provide > additional information about the call or about the provided service. > > Agree. Please find below the modified Section 9.2 modified > accordingly. Please let me know if you find inconsistencies in the > modified version. > > 9.2.Examples of How the Algorithm Works > > The following examples show how the algorithm described in the > previous section works: > > 9.2.1.Example 1 > > The device has a set of 4 alerting signals.We list their primary > meanings, and the locations that they are placed in the feature > trees: > > Signal 1 > > Meaning: external > Locations: > - source:external > - priority (that is, the root node of the priority tree) > > Signal 2 > > Meaning: internal > Locations: > - source:internal > - priority > > Signal 3 > > Meaning: low > Locations: > - source > - priority:low > > Signal 4 > > Meaning: high > Locations: > - source > - priority:high > > To which we add: > > Signal 5 > > Meaning: default > Locations: > - source > - priority > > If the device receives <urn:alert:source:internal>, then the sort is: > > Signals at source:internal: (this is, first place) > > Signal 2 > > Signals at source: (tied for second place) > > Signal 3 > Signal 4 > Signal 5 > > And these signals are excluded from the set: > > Signal 1 > > So in this example, the sorting algorithm properly gives first place > to Signal 2. > > 9.2.2.Example 2 > > Let us add to the set of signals in Example 1 ones that express > combinations like "internal, high priority", but let us specifically > exclude the combination "internal, low priority" so as to set up some > tricky examples.This enlarges our set of signals: > > Signal 1 > > Meaning: default > Locations: > - source > - priority > > Signal 2 > > Meaning: external > Locations: > - source:external > - priority > > Signal 3 > > Meaning: internal > Locations: > - source:internal > - priority > > Signal 4 > > Meaning: low > Locations: > - source > - priority:low > > Signal 5 > > Meaning: high > Locations: > - source > - priority:high > > Signal 6 > > Meaning: external high > Locations: > - source:external > - priority:high > > Signal 7 > > Meaning: external low > Locations: > - source:external > - priority:low > > Signal 8 > > Meaning: internal high > Locations: > - source:internal > - priority:high > > If the device receives <urn:alert:source:internal>, then the sort is: > > Signals at source:internal: (that is, tied for first place) > > - Signal 3 > - Signal 8 > > Signals at source: (tied for second place) > > - Signal 4 > - Signal 5 > - Signal 1 > > Signals excluded from the set: > > - Signal 2 > - Signal 7 > - Signal 6 > > Two signals are tied for the first place, but the final sort orders > them: > > - Signal 3 > - Signal 8 > > because it puts the least-specific signal first.So the Signal 3 is > chosen. > > 9.2.3.Example 3 > > The same device receives <urn:alert:source:external>, > <urn:alert:priority:low>.The first sort (due to > <urn:alert:source:external>) is: > > Signals at source:external: > > - Signal 2 > - Signal 7 > - Signal 6 > > Signals at source: > > - Signal 4 > - Signal 5 > - Signal 1 > > Signals excluded: > > - Signal 3 > - Signal 8 > > The second sort (due to <urn:alert:priority:low>) puts signals at > priority:low before signals at priority, and excludes signal at > priority:high: > > - Signal 7 > - Signal 2 > - Signal 4 > - Signal 1 > > Excluded: > > - Signal 6 > - Signal 5 > - Signal 3 > - Signal 8 > > So, we choose Signal 7. > > 9.2.4.Example 4 > > Suppose the same device receives <urn:alert:source:internal>, > <urn:alert:priority:low>.Note that there is no signal that > corresponds to this combination. > > The first sort is based on source:internal, and results in this > order: > > - Signal 3 > - Signal 8 > - Signal 4 > - Signal 5 > - Signal 1 > > Excluded: > > - Signal 2 > - Signal 7 > - Signal 6 > > The second sort is based on priority:low, and results in this order: > > - Signal 3 > - Signal 4 > - Signal 1 > > Excluded: > > - Signal 8 > - Signal 5 > - Signal 7 > - Signal 2 > - Signal 6 > > So we choose the Signal 3.Note that <urn:alert:priority:low> could > not be given effect because it followed <urn:alert:source:internal>. > If the two URNs had appeared in the reverse order, the Signal 2 would > have been chosen, because <urn:alert:priority:low> would have been > given precedence. > > 9.2.5.Example 5 > > Let us set up a simple set of signals, with three signals giving > priority: > > Signal 1 > > Meaning: default > Locations: > - priority > > Signal 2 > > Meaning: low > Locations: > - priority:low > > Signal 3 > > Meaning: high > Locations: > - priority:high > > Notice that we've used the "default" signal to cover "normal > priority".That is so the signal will cover situations where no > priority URN is present, as well as the ones with > <urn:alert:priority:normal>.So we're deliberately failing to > distinguish "priority:normal" from the default priority. > > If the device receives <urn:alert:priority:low>, the sort is: > > - Signal 2 > - Signal 1 > > Excluded: > > - Signal 3 > > and Signal 2 is chosen. > > Similarly, if the device receives <urn:alert:priority:high>, Signal 3 > is chosen. > > If the device receives <urn:alert:priority:normal>, the sort is: > > -Signal 1 > > Excluded: > > - Signal 2 > - Signal 3 > > and Signal 1is chosen. > > If no "priority" URN is received, Signal 1 will be put before Signal > 2 and Signal 3 by the final sort, and so it will be chosen. > > > > Section 11: > > A SIP proxy MAY add a URN or multiple URNs to the Alert-Info header > field in a SIP request or a provisional 1xx response (excepting > a 100 > response) when it needs to provide additional information about the > call or about the provided service. > > I think we would ideally allow a proxy to modify/remove URNs, but > 3261 doesn't permit that. But a proxy can get a similar effect by > putting a counteracting URN earlier in the sequence. But it is also > possible that there will be no Alert-Info and the proxy needs to add > one. I suggest: > > A SIP proxy MAY add an Alert-Info header field if none is present, > and MAY add or remove URNs to an Alert-Info header > field in a SIP request or a provisional 1xx response (excepting > a 100 > response) when it needs to provide additional information about the > call or about the provided service. > > > Agree. > > Thank you > Laura > > > Thanks, > Paul > _______________________________________________ > salud mailing list > salud@ietf.org <mailto:salud@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud > >
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Laura Liess
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Laura Liess
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Laura Liess
- Re: [salud] WGLC of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-u… Laura Liess
- [salud] Revision of the examples Dale R. Worley
- Re: [salud] Revision of the examples Laura Liess
- Re: [salud] Revision of the examples Dale R. Worley
- Re: [salud] Revision of the examples Laura Liess
- Re: [salud] Revision of the examples Dale R. Worley