Re: [Simple] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-simple-chat

The draft has seven informative references to RFC 4575 - and a single
one that is normative for adding the Nickname code point.   Most of the
text is in the form "typically you would subscribe to RFC 4575 gather
information about the conference".  It's no problem adding "...subscribe
to RFC 4575 or draft-xcon-common-data-model..".     

While Nicknames are important for chat - so is a lot of the information
already referred to by informational references.  We make the references
informational by example for nicknames.   "For example the nickname can
be learned by subscribing to the draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model or by
extending the user-type of RFC 4575 ".

Geir A

From: simple-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:simple-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Ben Campbell
Sent: 16. desember 2010 18:20
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: Miguel A. Garcia; Geir Arne Sandbakken; Adam Roach; Simple WG;
xcon-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Aki Niemi
Subject: Re: [Simple] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-simple-chat

(as individual)

On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:

I would agree with option 1, but I do not think you can have the
'nickname' defined in an informational draft so options 2) and 3) are
not good IMHO.   Nickname is a key data element for chats.  So, I would
suggest you add a fourth option and that is to add a normative reference
to the xcon-data-model.  

The informational part was not to say an informational draft, but an
informational reference. I think the approach under discussion was to
say that you MAY convey nickname information. One possible way to do
that is with draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model. I don't have a strong
objection to making that a normative reference, though, if that is what
others prefer.

Of course, that doc will be published right around the same time as CCMP
and per the draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat, you will have a chat based
mechanism that doesn't require extensions to MSRP.  Although, in cases
where folks might first implement this mechanism for chat (rather than
XMPP, for example) and later want to use this mechanism with XCON, it
would still work - it's just that you'd have two different mechanisms
for setting the nickname.

Yep. That's come up before, and each time we land on "lets go ahead and
publish simple-chat". I don't expect a different answer this time
(although if someone has actually changed their mind since last time,
I'd love to hear it.)

Regards,

Mary. 

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

	(as chair)

	Hi,

	I discussed this with a number of people individually, but I
don't think we ever brought this to the SIMPLE list, so I want to make
it official. I've copied the XCON chairs, as well as people I recall
discussing this with.

	In reviewing draft-ietf-simple-chat prior to requesting
publication, we ran across the fact that this draft extended the data
format from RFC 4575 (sip event package) in order to add a "nickname"
data element. The issue was that RFC 4575 did not define a clear way to
add new data elements, so this would appear to require an update to that
RFC.

	OTOH, XCON produced draft-ietf-xcon-event-package and
draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model in order to extend RFC 4575 with a
richer data set. The former is in the RFC Editor queue, and the latter
is in AD Followup. These drafts extend the SIP conference model with a
richer data format. My understanding is that
draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model includes the "nickname" element, and
is otherwise a superset of the format in RFC 4575.

	We have a proposal to change draft-ietf-simple-chat as follows:

	1) Remove the update to RFC 4575

	2) Demote the reference to RFC 4575 to informational.

	3) Add an informational reference to
draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model as a possible way to convey "nickname"
information to conference package subscribers.

	Please respond indicating whether you agree with some or all of
the above, along with any rational you would like to share. I don't
think these are all or nothing--for example one might agree with 3 but
disagree with 1 or 2.

	We'd really like to get submit this draft prior to the end of
the year, and I think this is the last blocking item, so please respond
ASAP.
	_______________________________________________
	Simple mailing list
	Simple@ietf.org
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple