Subject: [salud] I-D Action:draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:00:03 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Sip ALerting for User Devices Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Alert-Info URNs for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
	Author(s)       : L. Liess, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-01.txt
	Pages           : 24
	Date            : 2011-04-14

The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports the capability to
provide a reference to a specific rendering to be used by the UA when
the user is alerted.  This is done using the Alert-Info header field.
However, the reference addresses only network resources with specific
rendering properties.  There is currently no support for predefined
standard identifiers for describing the semantics of the alerting
situation or the characteristics of the alerting signal, without
being tied to a particular rendering.  To overcome this limitation
and support new applications, a new family of URNs for use in SIP
Alert-Info header fields is defined in this specification.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:51:14 +0200

I just skimmed the diffs and noticed a few things:

1. "This specification changes the usage of the SIP Alert-Info header
   field defined in the [RFC3261] by additionally allowing its use in
   all provisional responses to INVITE (except the 100 response)."
This seems to suggest it updates RFC 3261, but I don't see this in the header.

2. Section 1.3 seems to suggest that "indication" and "identifier" mean the same thing. Both terms are used extensively throughout the document. If they mean the same thing, please use just one term. If they mean different things, define them.

3. "REQ-7: The mechanism will provide only an indication capability, not
   a negotiation capability.  The mechanism will not require an
   indication to depend on context provided by a previous indication in
   either direction."
Shouldn't this be two separate REQs?

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: 14 April 2011 16:00
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [salud] I-D Action:draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-01.txt
>

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:41:15 +0200

John,

Thanks a lot for the comments.

> This seems to suggest it updates RFC 3261, but I don't see this in the header.

[LL] I think you are right. Do I have to ask the SIPCORE chairs or
Gonzalo before doing this?
> 2. Section 1.3 seems to suggest that "indication" and "identifier" mean the same thing. Both terms are used extensively throughout the document. If they mean the same thing, please use just one ter…
[LL]  They are the same thing and I would prefer to use "indication".
Just that Dale has to agree to this because the text was in one of his
comments.
@Dale: Is this OK for you?

> Shouldn't this be two separate REQs?
[LL] Before submitting the draft I also thougt about splitting it into
REQ-7a and REQ-7b. I didn't do it but it makes sense. I would not
renumber until we are not ready with changing the requirements.

Regards
Laura

> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:52:00 -0400

On 4/15/2011 11:41 AM, Laura Liess wrote:
> 2011/4/15 Elwell, John<[email-masked]>:

Gonzalo I think.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:14:12 +0200

> From: Laura Liess [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 15 April 2011 16:41
> To: Elwell, John; Dale Worley
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [salud] I-D 
> Action:draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-01.txt
> 
> John,
> 
[JRE] Good question. The SALUD charter doesn't really extend beyond defining the URN scheme. Seems like an AD question. Personally I would hope we can do it here in SALUD but perhaps make SIPCORE aware.

John

> >
> > 2. Section 1.3 seems to suggest that "indication" and 
> "identifier" mean the same thing. Both terms are used 
> extensively throughout the document. If they mean the same 
> thing, please use just one term. If they mean different 
> things, define them.

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:06:46 +0200

Thank you. I will ask Gonzalo.

Laura

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:08:31 +0200

> [JRE] Good question. The SALUD charter doesn't really extend beyond defining the URN scheme. Seems like an AD question. Personally I would hope we can do it here in SALUD but perhaps make SIPCORE a…

I will ask Gonzalo, as Paul said.

Thanks
Laura

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:41:00 -0400

> From: Laura Liess
> 
> > From: Elwell, John
> >
> > 2. Section 1.3 seems to suggest that "indication" and "identifier"
> > mean the same thing. Both terms are used extensively throughout the
> > document. If they mean the same thing, please use just one term. If
> > they mean different things, define them.
> 

Yes, I have no objection to whatever terminology you think is best.

> renumber until we are not ready with changing the requirements.

You could consider it to be two requirements, or as one requirement
which defines the independence of interpreting an indication from all
external context.  It doesn't matter much which way we do it.

Dale

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:41:27 +0200

Dale,

> external context.  It doesn't matter much which way we do it.

[LL]  "REQ-7: The mechanism will provide only an indication
capability. The interpretation of an indication is independent from
all external context, e.g. context provided by a previous or
subsequent indication in either direction.  "

What do you think?

Laura

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:29:58 +0200

> Sent: 26 April 2011 09:41
> To: Worley, Dale R (Dale)
> Cc: Elwell, John; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [salud] I-D 
[JRE] I think this is just trying to hide what essentially are two separate requirements. I prefer to express it as two requirements.

John

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:02:21 +0200

John,

> [JRE] I think this is just trying to hide what essentially are two separate requirements. I prefer to express it as two requirements.
[LL]

"REQ-7a: The mechanism will provide only an indication capability, not
 a negotiation capability.

REQ-7b: The mechanism will not require an indication to depend on
context provided by a previous indication in
  either direction."

I just splitt  REQ-7. If people agree, I would renumber the
requirements when we are finished with changing them.

Is this OK for you?

Laura

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:51:46 +0200

Fine with me.

John 

> Sent: 26 April 2011 11:02
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: Worley, Dale R (Dale); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [salud] I-D 
> > [JRE] I think this is just trying to hide what essentially 
> are two separate requirements. I prefer to express it as two 
> requirements.
> >
> [LL]
>

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:44:18 -0400

________________________________________
From: Laura Liess [[email-masked]]

REQ-7b: The mechanism will not require an indication to depend on
context provided by a previous indication in either direction."
_________________________________________

This formulation is fine with me.

Dale

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:45:30 +0200

John, Dale,

Thank you for your comments.  When I receive Gonzalo's answer
concerning the update RFC 3261 I will update the draft.

Laura