Subject: RE: [Sipping] RE: Status of draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:52:33 -0500

Guido:
 
I have every authority to provide comments. You are NOT the person to ask my
authority. All you need to do is to answer the technical issues that have
been raised.
 
Period.
 
The scope has NOT been changed. The way the draft has been written it is
technically inconsistent. The draft itself says two different things: a.
Requirements and d. Implementation Framework.
 
What is this framework for? What is this requirement for? The draft itself
has contradicted.
 
Where had you been so long when I provided the comments to you all? Are
these not the same comments?
 
More inline [RRR]
 
BR/Radhika
 
PS: Arnoud and I had already exhnaged emails. He is working to deal with all
technical issues that I have raised. Better contact him.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Guido Gybels
Sent: Thu 3/9/2006 1:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sipping] RE: Status of draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt

Radhika, 

I don't know with what authority you speak here, but I certainly strongly
disagree with you on a number of issues. As Gonzalo says, we have received
*specific* comments after the previous draft version as part of the WGLC
process. We have attempted to address these specific issues in this new
draft. You seem to suggest we suddenly change the scope, contents,... of
this draft. I do not think that is either appropriate or relevant.

Specifically: 

1) When you say: <<Examine whether we can modify the title as "Framework for
ToIP Implementation Requirements.">> 

This is nothing I have seen any of the otyher co-authors agree to. The title
was changed between version 3 and 4 to answer the specific comment that was
received as part of WGLC that we needed to be more clear about what this
draft describes. The question was asked whether or not this draft describes
either an implementation framework or a set of requirements. The draft and
the title were thus changed to: "Framework for real-time text over IP using
SIP" as to remove this ambiguity. Your proposal to now, immediately after we
have made that clarification, reintroduce the previous ambiduity is
inappropriate, confusing and certainly does not have my support as a
co-author. We can see what the other authors say, but I would be greatly
surprised if they would now want to revert back to the ambiguity of before.

[RRR] Whether co-authors agree or NOT, I provided comments before to you
all. It was told that it is INCOMPLETE draft and the work in progress. I
told that WGLC draft is NOT inprogress, and it is a mistake to send the
incomplete draft to the IETF. Since it is an INCOMPLETE draft, the technical
issues need to be taken care through clarifications.

[RRR] More can be seen above.

2) When you say: "Provide Clear implementation requirements/guidelines of
the Real-Time Text application for the multimedia conferencing application
server."

That has not been part of the scope for this draft at any time. I don't see
any argument to suddenly introduce this as a new part of the draft's scope
at this stage, after WGLC. You are obviously free to introduce a separate
draft on this topic.

[RRR] Not at all. The draft itself deals with p2p calls and multipoint
calls, media bridging. It is totally INCOMPLETE and misguided even to
describe those in the draft if it NOT in the scope of this. When people do
not know how to address the technical issues, people will always have the
excuse such as NOT a part of the scope.

[RRR] Iif it is NOT a part of this scope, why does this draft deal with this
as a part of the implementation requirements making some stray statement
here and there? 

3) When you say: "Provide Clear implementation requirements/guidelines for
bridging of the Real-Time Text by the media bridge."

That has also not been part of the scope for this draft. I don't see any
reason to introduce it at this late stage into the draft. You are obviously
free to introduce a separate draft on this topic.

[RRR] No, not at all. The draft itself describes p2p and multipoint,
multimedia bridging. By the way, what is this draft? What is the scope of
framework of this for? What are the implemetation requirements framework of
this draft? 

4) When you say: Provide Clear implementation requirements/guidelines for
interworking between Real-Time Text and Audio for both point-to-point call.
and multipoint call in the IP network only without mobility. This will
include many possible scenarios: a. Real-Time Text only users (p2p, mpt), b.
Combination of Real-Time Text and Audio users only (p2p, mpt), and c.
Combination of Real-Time Text + Video + Non-Real-Time Data/Applications
users and Audio + Video + Non-Real-Time Data/Applications users (p2p,
mpt).>>

The current draft discusses interworking in a relevant way by outlining
where interworking is an issue and what considerations have to be taken. I
don't see any reason for suddenly dramatically altering the concept or the
scope of the current draft (convoluting more like it) and I am not aware of
any of my fellow co-authors requesting this or supporting it.

[RRR] Again, this shows technical INCONSISTENCIES. The draft does deal with
p2p and multipoint calls. The sections themselves already provide some kinds
of view what people are after. For example, we have stated different things
as follows, but we have clarified the implementation of ToIP in those
scenarios other than some stray statements here and there:

                * P2P calls, Multipoint Calls
                * P2P calls can be ToIP only or ToIP with other media
                * Multipoint calls can be ToIP only or ToIP with other media
                * Networks can be IP/LAN only (fixed and/or mobile), IP/LAN
+ PSTN (fixed and/or mobile users), IP/LAN + cellular  (terminal mobility,
user mobility), IP/LAN + PSTN + cellular (terminal mobility + user mobility)

5) When you say: <<Extend item 4 for mobility in IP network (Terminal +
User) only. (Note: It will include Wireless LANs, but not cellular
wireless).>>

I do not believe there is any scope for extension of that topic in this
draft beyond what is currently covered by it. I am not aware of any of the
fellow co-authors making such a suggestion or supporting it.

[RRR} See above. Mobility (use + terminal) , wireless, cellular network, and
PSTN are already there. P2P and multipoint calls are also there. So, what is
missing?

[RRR] Comments are already provided with all, and it has been agreed that
the draft is INCOMPLETE, and the work is in progress. You might has said
there and there as probably has failed to address all the issues, and the
draft was submitted all in a hurry without following the norm.

6) When you say: <<Extend items 4 and 5 interworking between IP, Wireless
LANs, and cellular wireless networks.>> 

I do not believe there is any scope for extension of that topic in this
draft beyond what is currently covered by it. I am not aware of any of the
fellow co-authors making such a suggestion or supporting it. This was not
raised during WGLC and I do not believe the current draft is lacking
anything in this respect. I do not agree any additions should be made.

[RRR] Again see above. Interworking is a part of the draft. INCOMPLETE draft
has been send without following any norms. Again, what is the draft for?
What are those requirements for? What is this framework of implementation?

7) When you say: <<Extend item 4 interworking between IP and PSTN network
only.>> 

I do not believe there is any scope for extension of that topic in this
draft beyond what is currently covered by it. I am not aware of any of the
fellow co-authors making such a suggestion or supporting it. This was not
raised during WGLC and I do not believe the current draft is lacking
anything in this respect. I do not agree any additions should be made.

[RRR] Again see above. Interworking is a part of the draft. Again, what is
the draft for? What are those requirements for? What is this framework of
implementation?

8) When you say: <<Extend item 4 interworking between IP, Wireless LANs,
Cellular Wireless, and PSTN network.>> 

I do not believe there is any scope for extension of that topic in this
draft beyond what is currently covered by it. I am not aware of any of the
fellow co-authors making such a suggestion or supporting it. This was not
raised during WGLC and I do not believe the current draft is lacking
anything in this respect. I do not agree any additions should be made.

[RRR] Again see above. Interworking is a part of the draft. INCOMPLETE draft
has been send without following any norms. Again, what is the draft for?
What are those requirements for? What is this framework of implementation?

9) When you say: <<Indicate clearly what if implementations of the
multimedia application server and media bridges for items 6, 7, and 8. The
locations of these entities will make differences in implications. 10.
Like streaming audio/video, we also need to write-up the streaming
"Real-Time Text" implementations in IP, Wireless LAN, Cellular, and/or PSTN
networking environments. We have NOT done this yet. It is a NEW item.>>

This is out of scope. It could be part of a separate draft. I do anticipate
that various additional drafts can be meaningfully written on the topic of
ToIP. However, that does not mean that the current draft, with its specific
objective of describing a ToIP framework for implementation using SIP+RTP is
incomplete or that we should suddenly change the scope of it.

[RRR] I have already mentioned this. This is for completeness because the
draft has been intended for the realtime text implementation. This is
another implementation environment. 

10) When you say: <<The superfluous write-ups of wireless networking,
mobility, and other need to be focused ONLY on implementation
guidelines/requirements. (Note: People do not want tutorials or some stray
descriptions of some  features in this document. If this guidelines are not
satisfied, let us drop all those write-ups.)>>

I don't understand this comment. I don't see what is superfluous nor what
you propose to change. I have not seen specific comments on this as part of
WGLC by you or anyone else. Again, the draft discusses a relevant set of
issues that are of importance to implementers. What you think is missing or
should be changes, I have no idea.

[RRR] Again see above. Interworking is a part of the draft. INCOMPLETE draft
has been send without following any norms. Again, what is the draft for?
What are those requirements for? What is this framework of implementation?

11) When you say: <<Must focus that ToIP is for all users (users with
difficulties + mainstream users).>> 

The draft already does this. 

[RRR] Still more is missing.

12) When you say: <<Use "Real-Time Text" consistently throughout the
document.>> 

I am not aware of any inconsistency anywhere in the way the draft uses this
term. Unless you can suggest a specific location in the draft where specific
wording needs to be inserted or changed, I suggest this comment is invalid.

[RRR] Still more needs to be done.

13) When you say: <<Define "Rea-Time Text" bridging with clear terms and
focus the requirements of this clearly because this is a new functional
feature of the media bridge.>>

IF you want to describe a new feature of the media bridge, you are welcome
to publish a draft on that topic. 

[RRR] No, not really. The draft already deals with this, but inconsistently.
Did I not mention before as well?

14) When you say: <<Differentiate between "Real-Time Text" bridging and
"Non-Real-Time Data/Text" bridging because they are two different things
(NOT the same).>>

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. The draft describes a ToIP
framework. It lists the considerations for making the ToIP framework as
described interwork with various other interactive text platforms on other
networks and it provides recommendations for interworking with IM. I don't
see where there is any lack of clarity, ambiguity or missing definition.
Unless you can suggest a specific location in the draft where specific
wording needs to be inserted or changed, I suggest this comment is invalid.

[RRR] Again see above. Interworking is a part of the draft. INCOMPLETE draft
has been send without following any norms. Again, what is the draft for?
What are those requirements for? What is this framework of implementation?

15) When you say: <<Keep the texts/write-ups consistent for point-to-point
calls and multipoint calls. For multipoint calls, the application server and
media bridge will come into play.>>

I don't see what you are suggesting is missing in the draft. I do not
believe anything is missing in this respect in this draft. Unless you can
suggest a specific location in the draft where specific wording needs to be
inserted or changed, I suggest this comment is invalid.

[RRR] The draft mentions about the bridging (inconistently), but does not
explain what role of the application server will be. What do you mean by
implementation requirements in this multipoint call scenarios?

16) When you say: <<State implementation requirements for multipoint calls
with multimedia in clear terms in all entities without keeping any
ambiguities.>>

I don't see what ambiguity in this draft and within the agreed scope for it
you are referring to. Unless you can suggest a specific location in the
draft where specific wording needs to be inserted or changed, I suggest this
comment is invalid.

[RRR] As I explained all along. I know when people fail to understand, they
will always say I do not see the points. By the way, what are the
implemetation framework? Do you have any idea what it means? Do you have any
idea what it includes and waht it excludes?

Guido 

Guido Gybels 
Director of New Technologies 

RNID, 19-23 Featherstone Street 
London EC1Y 8SL, UK 
Tel +44(0)207 294 3713 
Fax +44(0)207 296 8069  

Want to Hear More? 

If you're not hearing as well as you used to, or feel someone near you may
be missing out, call 0845 600 55 55 now and take our five-minute telephone
hearing check.

For more information visit www.breakingthesoundbarrier.org.uk 

******************************************************************* 
This email and attachments (if any) must be swept for viruses before
opening. Their contents may be confidential or privileged and are intended
solely for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient and
you have received this email in error you must not read or use this email
and should notify RNID on: +44 (0) 20 7296 8282.

RNID, Registered Office 19-23 Featherstone Street, London EC1Y 8SL No.
454169 (England, Registered Charity No. 207720) 

******************************************************************** 

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

---

From: "Gunnar Hellstrom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:14:28 +0100

Radhika and all,
The main WGLC comment was that it was unclear if the draft intended to point
at required protocol additions or state user requirements.

We have made an effort to clear that issue. We are just pointing at how to
use existing mechanisms to include real time text in the general SIP
environment, and how to solve the specific interoperability issues with real
time text in other networks. We also have separated user requirements from
solutions. The draft is a profiling document, isolating a set of user
requirements and pointing at mechanisms to use for solving them in a
harmonized way, so that interoperability is maximised.

We have not been requested to mention p2p or mobility, and we do not need to
do it in this draft. From now on I expect all sipping authors to bring in
real-time text in the media examples in their drafts. Once you are in the
SIP environment, real-time text is just one medium among others.

We made extensive rewording, so I just think that the draft needs a thorough
review to check if we covered the WGLC comments properly.

We will surely touch the text medium again in other drafts, but let us get
this finalized without bringing in new topics that can be covered better in
joint SIP-related specifications.

Gunnar

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Gunnar Hellström, Omnitor

---

Arnoud:

You have touched couple of good points, but still it falls short off what I
have been saying all along. Few points are as follows:

1.

	I am NOT talking about future drafts at all. I clearly know what I
have to do in the future drafts as I started this one in the beginning both
as editor and co-author. I would not wait for anyone to do those if I have
time.
2.

	We  agreed that the draft you have sent is INCOMPLETE and it was
sent, as Gunnar explained, it is a work-in-progress.
3.

	What I am saying to complete the work-in-progress part. That is all
about. It is nothing to do with Rome that was not in a day. It is common
technical sense that the draft has to live with its implementation
requirements. As it was hurriedly sent all on a sudden to show as
work-in-progress, the remaining technical issues need to be completed, and
it is the framework of the implementation requirements for which the draft
has set the stage (a. p2p, b. mpt, c. toip only media, d. multiple media
along with toip, d. ip only, e. ip + LANs, f. ip + pstn, g. ip + pstn +
cellular, f. mobility [user + terminal]) .
4.

	Are you saying the draft is COMPLETE as it stands NOW?

Best regards,
Radhika

  _____

---

From: "Arnoud van Wijk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:31:39 +0100

Hello,
And yes, this draft is complete for the scope and means set in the SIPPING
WG. 

Greetz

Arnoud van Wijk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunnar Hellstrom [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: zaterdag 11 maart 2006 8:14
> To: Roy, Radhika R.; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] RE: Status of draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt
> 
> Radhika and all,