Subject: [Sipping] Reminder: WG item : dialog-usage

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:42:12 -0600

We've taken on documenting the issues around having multiple dialog  
usages share a dialog as a working group item.

draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-usage-00.txt is the current draft  
addressing that item.

I believe it to be essentially done and will ask the chairs to last  
call the document as soon as I re-verify coverage
of the response codes.

If you have not read this document, now would be a good time.

Thanks!

RjS

_______________________________________________
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: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:28:50 -0500

Robert,

Its hard to have last call on a document that isn't in the server. The 
-00 version expired quite some time ago, and I'm not aware of a newer one.

We had some discussion of it before the last meeting, and there were at 
least a few points that needed some clarification.

Based on some of the recent discussion threads, we may want to consider 
putting more into it. Maybe we need to have an informal hallway ad hoc 
in Dallas among those who are interested.

	Paul

Robert Sparks wrote:
> draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-usage-00.txt is the current draft  addressing 
> that item.
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:13:09 -0600

Fair point. And I will have an -01 in before the -01+ deadline to  
correct that problem.

I'll comb the pre-Vancouver conversations again and make sure I  
captured all those clarifications.
I hope we get some other gems from the discussion Christian started.

The biggest objection you had to the -00 version (IIRC), was the  
position it took that multiple usages
were to be avoided. The list and meeting discussion around that  
reinforced for me that this was the
consensus position and that's what the -01 draft will continue to say.

RjS

On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Its hard to have last call on a document that isn't in the server.  
> The -00 version expired quite some time ago, and I'm not aware of a  
> newer one.
>
> We had some discussion of it before the last meeting, and there  
> were at least a few points that needed some clarification.
>
> Based on some of the recent discussion threads, we may want to  
> consider putting more into it. Maybe we need to have an informal  
> hallway ad hoc in Dallas among those who are interested.
>
> 	Paul
>
> Robert Sparks wrote:
>> We've taken on documenting the issues around having multiple  
>> dialog  usages share a dialog as a working group item.
>> I believe it to be essentially done and will ask the chairs to  
>> last  call the document as soon as I re-verify coverage
>> of the response codes.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:29:38 -0500

> consensus position and that's what the -01 draft will continue to say.

Yeah. There was also some discussion about what 481 means.

	Paul

>> We had some discussion of it before the last meeting, and there  were 
>> at least a few points that needed some clarification.
>>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:24:43 -0600

Ah - now that I've had a chance to look, I don't feel quite as bad :)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping- 
dialogusage-00.txt

is not expired. I think you were remembering the individual submission.

I do still need to reflect the 481 clarification we converged on in  
the list.

RjS

On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>>> Its hard to have last call on a document that isn't in the  
>>> server.  The -00 version expired quite some time ago, and I'm not  
>>> aware of a  newer one.
>>>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:24:41 -0500

Robert Sparks wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping- dialogusage-00.txt
> 

Duh. You took the hyphen out of dialogusage, which screwed up all my 
attempts to find it. :-(

> I do still need to reflect the 481 clarification we converged on in  the 
> list.

I think some of the discussion we have been having about what state is 
associated with a dialog vs what is associated with each kind of dialog 
usage would be helpful, as would a few words about the fact that the 
dialog event package is really about the invite dialog usage. I have to 
find some time to review the draft again carefully and see for sure if 
stuff like that makes sense in there. While this kind of stuff could go 
somewhere else, it would be good for it to go somewhere, and I doubt 
that yet another draft is in anyone's best interest.

	Thanks,
	Paul

>>>> The -00 version expired quite some time ago, and I'm not  aware of 
>>>> a  newer one.
>>>>
>>>>> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ sipping