Subject: [cuss] backup minutes for cuss interim meeting 21-sep-2011 @ 11:00 EDT

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:52:50 -0400

Notes from the cuss interim meeting 21-sep-2011 @  11:00-13:00 EDT

Vijay said he was enabling recoding of the meeting. Keith said we need 
to *ask* if ok to record.

Alan discussed the requirements doc. Particularly Keith had issue with 
Rqmt-8. Concern is that it be clear that this doesn't require updates to 
proxies. He doesn't have a preference on how this is done. Goal is to 
impose no requirements on what proxies do or don't do with this info. 
Gonzalo said that after this is fixed we can continue rather than having 
another WGLC.

We have missed the proposed Sept 15 date for WGLC of the mechanism 
document. It will be delayed a bit.

For isdn draft, plan to hum for adoption of Keith's draft.

Intend to ask for 1 hr slot in taiwan, then cancel if not needed.

Discussion of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-02, by Alan J:

Keith asked about making application be mandatory. Alan stated that 
existing deployments don't do this. There was no decision

Paul asked to allow quoted string as well as token for the uui value. 
This was agreed.

Keith raised further concern about determination of source of UUI. He 
wants it to be more general - to state that UUI source is same as 
message source, and message source can be determined in many ways, 
including P-Asserted-Identity.

Keith raised issues with H-I and isdn. Do we allow redirection in the 
isdn case, and what happens. What happens if we do redirection and it 
overwrites the uui info.

There was a suggestion that when we get to wglc, formally ask sipcore to 
review the doc in context of 4244bis usage.

Paul brought up question of what "application" means. Keith agreed he 
didn't know either. So we need to clear that up. Further discussion will 
be done on list for this.

Keith didn't think feature-tag is needed for isdn. I suggested that the 
name format including uui- probably wasn't good either - that there is 
probably more than just UUI involved in the feature.

Discussion of draft-drage-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-01, by Keith D:

Lots of clarifying discussion. Suggestions for word smithing. (Current 
text suggests that use in initial INVITE allows general usage within 
dialog, not just in response to the invite or in BYE. But other text 
contradicts this.)

Paul mentioned that section 6 is confusing by its use of 128 as the size 
limit, because the limit with protocol discriminator is 129. Keith will 
clarify.

There was a request for any objections to adopting this doc as wg doc. 
There were none. Will take to list for formal approval.

Wrapup:

Keith would like another conference call before Taipei. Alan agreed.
Suggestion to have it around week of Oct 24. Will have a doodle poll on 
this.

	Thanks,
	Paul

P.S. I will miss the Friday conf call due to a conflicting engagement. I 
will also have limited internet connectivity for the next week, so don't 
be surprised to not see me commenting.