IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-03

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 13 July 2010 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 83D3D3A6844 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
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 f5YblnqMamrL for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EE73A67AE for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydra-3.local (ppp-70-249-149-233.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [70.249.149.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6D2R7VD024979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:27:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4C3BCEFB.5010201@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:27:07 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: krisztian.kiss@nokia.com
References: <99619466-573D-4CEA-ACCD-3A3D262EB2B0@nostrum.com> <A80667440D58A1469E651BA443BED3C1547F4EDE9D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <A80667440D58A1469E651BA443BED3C1547F4EDE9D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 70.249.149.233 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-03
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: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:27:02 -0000

  [as participant and RFC3265 expert]

On 7/12/10 19:13, Jul 12, krisztian.kiss@nokia.com wrote:
> Major question:
>
> Why isn't this an Update to 3265?
>
> [KK] It's an extension to 3265. Implementations of 3265 not interested in rate control don't need to implement it. If people think it's an essential part of event-notifications, we could make it as an update of 3265. Any recommendations?

To be clear, these kinds of extensions haven't historically been 
considered "updates" to 3265 -- at least, in terms of the RFC "updates" 
terminology. Probably the closest parallel is RFC 4662 (another 
cross-package extension), which was not considered to be an update to 3265.

So I think it's appropriate to consider this an extension (which we have 
not traditionally considered an "update"), rather than a formal update.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email