[sipcore] Feature-Caps - feature tag registration [was: Draft new version: draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature-03 (featuring the Feature-Caps header field)]

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 02 November 2011 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB4B1F0CAC for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MwWFurjzG4fB for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9113B1F0C56 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-88-4eb1a15a4862
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3C.48.20773.A51A1BE4; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:00:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.57]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:00:26 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:00:25 +0100
Thread-Topic: Feature-Caps - feature tag registration [was: [sipcore] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature-03 (featuring the Feature-Caps header field)]
Thread-Index: AQHMmZkcV5x+AK+iC0mdr5wLcvEkdA==
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058522357173A1@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: [sipcore] Feature-Caps - feature tag registration [was: Draft new version: draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature-03 (featuring the Feature-Caps header field)]
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:00:34 -0000

Hi,

(Moved first part from the terminology thread)

>>> Section 8:
>>>
>>> Since this is using feature tags, it has to live with the IANA
>>> registration mechanism defined in 2506. I think that means, at best, you
>>> can require that certain material be included in the "Related standards
>>> or documents" that can optionally be included in a feature tag
>>> registration. That means it won't be possible to discern from a feature
>>> tag registration whether it applicable for use in Feature-Caps.
>>
>> I don't know remember whether the references are optional or not, but at least 3GPP has provided them for all feature tags.
>
> I checked - they are optional.
>
>> But, in general, I still think we can provide guidance and recommendations in the spec on what kind of information needs to be provided in the definition/registration.
>
> I guess you can say that a feature-tag can only be used in this way if
> the registration of the tag references a document that has some specific
> content. That would rule out all the existing ones, until their
> registration is updated.
>
>>>> And, as you also indicated, we can specify what information a feature tag specification, and its associated IANA registration, needs to contain.
>>>
>>> If we use feature tags, unless we require use of the "sip" tree, or
>>> define a new tree, I don't think we can specify what the specification
>>> includes, since the registration is defined by RFC 2506.
>>
>> What is it then that is missing today? For example, alll the currently IANA registered g.3gpp feature tags DO contain a specification reference.
>
> We can't easily (without ammending 2506) change what is required to
> register a feature tag. The document references are optional, and there
> is no required content for referenced documents.
>
> I think its probably possible to craft the normative requirements for a
> new usage of feature-tags (i.e. in Feature-Caps) to restrict usage to
> feature tags that have a referenced document with some specific content.
>
> What that wouldn't do is normatively prohibit the use of those new
> feature tags in other places, such as called out in 3840/3841. To do
> that we would have to revise 3840/3841.

I am sure we will be able to sort those things out.

Regards,

Christer