Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis

Cullen Jennings <> Tue, 21 June 2011 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9063511E80A6 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.592
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92kFspkiCDsb for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A6E11E8083 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1086; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1308698492; x=1309908092; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UTRPCISvtV+10Vs/djuuDPVcWaxsDr/MInIaJxJPPtM=; b=L1zE6U9kCmyoN0PaF6Ww2+5Nt3V/AJrnV5Punwzs+GUwIynV0sNaOaMg 37DcGbwlWxJcnJefL3oFpLagVDIeRNY9UaGvBe9oWHQAvWpdIBcgL/TKZ TvBCFjJ8+gmgGXoiZGm0wIzxmZtD3mZutgP4hwD3gF5V/hdAO28jILb8L Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAPwmAU5Io8UR/2dsb2JhbABUpwZ3iHOhfJ4ghioEhyKKRJAm
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,403,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="95708867"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2011 23:21:30 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5LNLR0F026990 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:21:28 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:21:29 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: " WG" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:21:36 -0000

I still feel the same as my email from last nov ...

On Nov 11, 2010, at 1:41 , Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 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.