Re: [Sipping] draft-rosenberg-sipping-acr-code-00.txt

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

It's also up to the area directors, who have to approve any new SIP  
work item. They usually say yes, but I failed the request yesterday  
and haven't seen a response yet.

--
Dean

On Jan 11, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> H Jonathan,
>
> can you then submit a new revision of the draft as a SIP WG item?  
> If there are no remaining open issues, it could be WGLCed right  
> away... but that is up to the SIP WG chairs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>> I think the one and only requirement was to define a way to inform  
>> a caller that the call was rejected because the caller was  
>> anonymous, and the called party does not accept anonymous calls. I  
>> think there was general agreement on that requirement.
>> As such, I'm fine to forward this on to sip.
>> -Jonathan R.
>> Dean Willis wrote:
>>>
>>> Since the draft defines a new SIP response code, I believe it  
>>> would  need to be progressed through the SIP working group as a  
>>> standards- track document.
>>>
>>> Do we have a consensus in SIPPING on the fundamental requirements  
>>> and  the general approach? If so, we can forward this work to SIP  
>>> for  completion.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2006, at 5:24 AM, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the ad-hoc SIPPING meeting in Vancouver to discuss ETSI  
>>>> TISPAN  issues, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- 
>>>> rosenberg-sipping- acr-code-00.txt was presented as the  
>>>> appropriate solution to the  TISPAN issue of how to reject  
>>>> anonymous calls. Note that an  anonymous call (where the  
>>>> identity has been explicitly withheld),  and a call where the  
>>>> identity has failed to be transferred by the  intervening  
>>>> signalling, are different things and the new proposed  new  
>>>> status-code only applies to the former.
>>>>
>>>> The need for users to be able to reject such calls, and the need  
>>>> to  explicitly indicate the reason for rejection, are part of  
>>>> European  regulatory requirements for voice calls.
>>>>
>>>> The alternative approach identified by TISPAN was to include  
>>>> the  existing PSTN/ISDN cause value in a Reason header in a  
>>>> response,  but SIPPING people concluded that this was not a good  
>>>> idea.
>>>>
>>>> ETSI TISPAN has agreed to use the proposed new status-code to  
>>>> solve  this problem. The draft looks to be uncontentious and  
>>>> complete. Can  I ask the WG chairs how they intend to progress  
>>>> the draft?
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> Keith Drage
>>>> Lucent Technologies
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> tel: [phone]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>>>> sipping
>>>> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
>>>> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
>>>> Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
>>> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
>>> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
>>> Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP
>>>
>


_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP