Re: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

[Keith Drage <[e-mail]>]

Just to restate, I am not expressing an opinion either for or against this.

I note that your document currently contains no normative references. I 
would have assumed that draft-york would have to be a normative 
reference (it is currently missing from the reference section, and there 
is apparently no section entitled normative references), and therefore 
at the very least, this would have to be an approved downref from a 
standards track document to an informational document.

But you may know differently!

regards

Keith

On 25-May-18 5:49 PM, Asveren, Tolga wrote:
>
> i- P-Charge-Info header is used over a decade in US by Tier-1’s and 
> also in some other geographies, e.g. Japan. The reason why there was a 
> relatively recent push to get it RFCed was mainly due to FCC.
>
> ii- draft-york-p-charge-info-07  indeed is a non-WG item. I don’t know 
> whether that would cause problems as questioned by Keith. Any feedback 
> on this is appreciated.
>
> iii- draft-york-p-charge-info-07 is now in AD-evaluation phase and I 
> am in the process to address the comments.
>
> iv- If used, P-Charge-Info has sensitive information and it being 
> verified, if possible, is a natural expectation IMHO. Therefore, I 
> submitted draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tolga
>
> *From:*stir <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Keith Drage
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:44 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just to be clear, the underlying protocol document is not a SIPCORE WG 
> item, but being progressed as as an individual draft.
>
> New SIP header fields can be created by such an individual draft in 
> accordance with RFC 5727:
>
> "
>
>         The proposed header field MUST be of a purely informational
>         nature and MUST NOT significantly change the behavior of SIP
>         entities that support it.  Header fields that merely provide
>         additional information pertinent to a request or a response are
>         acceptable; these header fields are thus expected to have few, if
>         any, implications for interoperability and backwards
>         compatibility.  Similarly, header fields that provide data
>         consumed by applications at the ends of SIP's rendezvous
>         function, rather than changing the behavior of the rendezvous
>         function, are likely to be providing information in this sense.
>         If the header fields redefine or contradict normative behavior
>         defined in Standards Track SIP specifications, that is what is
>         meant by significantly different behavior.  Ultimately, the
>         significance of differences in behavior is a judgment call that
>         must be made by the expert reviewer.
>
> "
> However individual drafts tend to make slow progress without WGs to 
> drive them.
>
> I have no opinion on whether STIR should have support, but would 
> question whether a WG standards track item should be defined to 
> support protocol that was not progressed as a WG item and is an 
> informational RFC.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
> On 09-May-18 1:35 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
>     Who wants this?   What is the use case or business case for this
>     as a PASSporT?
>
>     I’m actually curious?
>
>     It has certainly taken way to long for Dan York’s draft to float
>     through the convoluted IETF process but why?
>
>     —
>
>     Richard Shockey
>
>     Shockey Consulting LLC
>
>     Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
>
>     www.shockey.us <http://www.shockey.us>
>
>     www.sipforum.org <http://www.sipforum.org>
>
>     richard<at>shockey.us
>
>     Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101
>
>     PSTN [phone]
>
>     *From: *stir <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of "Asveren, Tolga"
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:45 PM
>     *To: *"[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *[stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info
>
>     I just submitted draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info:
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00..txt<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00.txt>
>
>     It defines a new claim type for P-Charge-Info.
>
>     P-Charge-Info is going through the last steps of becoming a RFC in
>     SIPCore WG and I though it would be a good idea to start working
>     on/kicking off discussions about the corresponding STIR support as
>     it is used to carry sensitive information for billing.
>
>     And here is the link for P-Charge-Info draft:
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-p-charge-info-07
>
>     Feedback/ideas/suggestions are appreciated.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Tolga
>
>     _______________________________________________ stir mailing list
>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     stir mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir