Subject: Re: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:52:41 +0200

Hi James,

the IANA policy to be used is an important issue and, thus, needs to be
discussed in the WG. For your comments, it seems the "Standards Action"
policy in RFC 5226 is what you are after. In any case, regardless of the
policy you finally choose, please engage the group so that we can move
this draft forward.

With respect to the other comment, I agree removing the word "only"
would make the sentence clearer.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 28/12/2012 5:15 PM, James Rafferty wrote:
> Gonzalo, 
> 
> Please see my comments below:  
> 
> James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:37 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt
> 
> Authors,
> 
> thanks for addressing my comments. I still have a couple of quick questions.
> 
> The new draft uses RFC Required as its IANA policy. I have not seen any discussions on the mailing list about this. Has the WG considered the Specification Required policy as well? Given that the draft gives guidelines on what is appropriate to register and what is not, having a policy that involves some type of technical review (e.g., by an expert) would seem a natural choice. What were the reasons considered when making this decision?
> 
> JR - There was a brief exchange between Keith Drage and Alan Johnston on this topic around Sept. 19, 2011 on the CUSS list, but I didn't see any immediate further discussion.   See the emails with Subject:    Registration requirements for new parameter values in the User-to-User header field.   There were several items to be clarified at that time around what kind of content needed to be specified for new UUI applications as a result of October list discussions and an interim meeting.   The result was additional IANA verbiage being added within the -03 version of the document in Section 6.4 - 6.5  stating that a Standards Track RFC was required for registering new values for the content and encoding parameters of the UUI header.    
> 
> I had a comment on the first sentence of Section 4.1 that does not seem to have been addressed. What is the meaning of "only" in this sentence?
> 
>>    The User-to-User (UUI) header field can be present in INVITE requests
>>    and responses only and in BYE requests and responses.
> 
> JR - The use of "only" here now looks superfluous, since the sentence goes on to discuss another context where the UUI header can be used; it probably would be clearer if "only" is deleted.   
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On 02/12/2012 1:44 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>> 	Title           : A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in SIP
>> 	Author(s)       : Alan Johnston
>>                           James Rafferty
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt
>> 	Pages           : 18
>> 	Date            : 2012-12-01
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    There is a class of applications which benefit from using SIP to
>>    exchange User to User Information (UUI) data during session
>>    establishment.  This information, known as call control UUI data, is
>>    a small piece of data inserted by an application initiating the
>>    session, and utilized by an application accepting the session.  The
>>    rules which apply for a specific application are defined by a UUI
>>    package.  This UUI data is opaque to SIP and its function is
>>    unrelated to any basic SIP function.  This document defines a new SIP
>>    header field, User-to-User, to transport UUI data, along with an
>>    extension mechanism.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cuss mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
>