[sipcore] Why doesn't 4244bis cover Marianne's use-case?

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Fri, 12 November 2010 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED593A67F7 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.058
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.058 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.541, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YO2yTm8iUyzY for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D903A6781 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:06:18 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:06:18 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "sipcore@ietf.org WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:06:16 -0500
Thread-Topic: Why doesn't 4244bis cover Marianne's use-case?
Thread-Index: AcuCDjF+SApIdspJSNqP2SboPfuUGA==
Message-ID: <2F27AF47-BD50-45FC-A832-DD845EEAA8FA@acmepacket.com>
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
Subject: [sipcore] Why doesn't 4244bis cover Marianne's use-case?
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:05:48 -0000

Hi,
It was unfortunate that we ran out of time in sipcore to talk about Marianne's draft, because I think it's a kind of litmus test of rfc4244bis.  Or else I think I must be missing something very basic. (easily the case)

When I read Marianne's draft, it sounds like the use-case she's trying to cover is call-forwarding, for things like voicemail systems to be able to detect/process.  So what really confuses me is I thought one of the basic applications 4244bis was trying to enable was exactly that one.  Right?  If it's not sufficient to achieve that, I think we've screwed up somewhere... or at least need to make sure it's not something we can fix in 4244bis, because now would be a really good time to fix it.  :)
My 2 cents.

-hadriel