Subject: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-service-identification-01.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:00:09 -0500

Hi all,

Per the status of this document in the chair charts from IETF-71, we
were to start the WGLC on this document right after IETF-71:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-service-identific
ation-01.txt

This two week WGLC ends on April 11th, 2008.

The expectation is for past reviewers (Tolga Asveren, Mahesh and Spencer
Dawkins (RAI area review)) to ensure their past concerns have been
adequately addressed.  

As well, others in the WG are strongly encouraged to provide feedback as
to the readiness of progressing the document, along with any other
comments.

Thanks,
Mary
SIPPING co-chair

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.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: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:20:14 +0100

Hi,

I provided comments a while ago (I informed Jonathan about this in
Philly), which I don't think have been responded to.

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: 27. maaliskuuta 2008 21:00
To: sipping
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo
Subject: [Sipping] WGLC:
draft-ietf-sipping-service-identification-01.txt

Hi all,

Thanks,
Mary
SIPPING co-chair

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.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://www.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: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:46:54 -0500

Hi Christer,

Yes, I see your comments on the list on Feb. 26th:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg15244.html
Since these are on the -01 version, they can be addressed by Jonathan
with other WGLC comments.

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:20 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); sipping
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo
Subject: RE: [Sipping] WGLC:

Hi,

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----

Hi all,

Thanks,
Mary
SIPPING co-chair

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:42:30 -0500

Hi, Mary,

I had actually looked at this version of the draft and posted comments at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg15233.html, but you 
may have missed this because I didn't change the Subject to point to .01...

I had two comments,

- one asking for a reference to "Push-to-Talk".

Jonathan suggested just telling people to Google "Push-to-Talk", which could 
be the right answer but seems strange, given the existence of informative 
references sections in RFCs. My counterproposal was to ask the OMA Liaison 
to suggest a reference, since I don't know what a stable reference would be, 
either. Obviously, this is a nit.

- one raising a concern that was similar to a concern Jonathan raised in the 
draft, but I thought it was different and worth mentioning - the draft talks 
at some length about the effect that using opaque service identifiers has on 
innovation BETWEEN carriers, but ISTM there's a similar effect on innovation 
even WITHIN a single carrier.

If you define two service using Service Identifiers that are only used 
within your network, it's not at all clear how to combine them for a 
customer who wants to use both on the same call, and it's not clear how to 
extend a single service, if signaling isn't sufficient to describe services. 
I don't think this is worth more than two sentences, but if the message of 
this draft is "using opaque service identifers breaks things for everyone", 
it seemed appropriate to say "using opaque service identifers even breaks 
things for YOU, within YOUR network".

So, obviously, ready to send to the AD from my perspective.

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
To: "sipping" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[email-masked]>; "Gonzalo Camarillo" 
<[email-masked]>; "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>; 
"Mahesh" <[email-masked]>; "Spencer Dawkins" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-service-identification-01.txt

Hi all,

Thanks,
Mary
SIPPING co-chair