[sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 11 November 2010 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3843A69C8 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:41:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.573
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9taPiEGpM+nw for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96FF3A69B3 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAPtI20yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACiQHGkPZtGhUoEhFqFfoML
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,182,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="618097157"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2010 09:41:26 +0000
Received: from [] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com []) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAB9fPvN005091; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:41:26 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:41:47 -0700
Message-Id: <14FFF078-E5D1-45F2-8D9A-AD52DE677CEF@cisco.com>
To: sipcore@ietf.org, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Subject: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis
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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:41:06 -0000

The draft has a lot well specified procedures about how to write tags to a message, and it discusses that the tags could be used in lots of ways. However, I would like to see some text added to section 8 that allowed implementers to use this specification to implemented some of the use cases it is designed to meet. Specifically I would like to see normative language on how a voicemail system can use the tags found in an incoming invite to determined which mailbox the call should be delivered too. 

People have suggested to me this information is in the call flows document. I like call flows, I think they help people, but this is an information document with no normative language describing how to do this. I'm not a huge fan of people implementing things off call flows. I rather have the procedures for this specified in 4244bis and then have example call flows that illustrated this in the call flow draft. 

Overall, this draft fixes many of the fundamental problems of RFC 4244.


PS - Sorry this was sent right before the meeting. Normally I would try and discuss something like this in the meeting but given the audio latencies we have been having today, I don't think that would work out ver well so decide to send this.