Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:43:00 -0600

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-26-2016
IETF LC End Date: Not known
IESG Telechat date: Not known

This document is ready as a BCP, however, it does have 1 Minor issue
that I detail below.

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 0

Minor:
- S1, "Other RAI working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not
  change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other
  technologies for interactive communication among humans."

  Are we intentionally limiting interactive communications only to
  "humans"?  I would suspect that this would be limiting, no?  A
  bunch of SIP SUBS/NOTs happen between automaton, or machines.
  Surely we don't want to exclude these in the future.  My suggestion
  would be to simply take out the phrase "among humans".

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:29:33 -0600

(+ART ADs)

>  would be to simply take out the phrase "among humans".

Hi Vijay,

Actually, the "human" part was intentional. RFC5727 was primarily about 
technologies for human communication. Certainly some of those 
technologies may be dual use (e.g. XMPP, SIP-Events), but the reason 
they were historically in the RAI area is that the primary use cases 
under consideration involved humans, or supported those that did. A 
SUB/NOT protocol that was primarily intended for machine-to-machine use 
probably would not have ended up in RAI.

Those boundaries are more blurred now since the merger of APP and RAI 
into ART. But 5727 was primarily about the SIP change process. That text 
in section 1 is intended to describe the scope of 5727, and in section 3 
to describe the subset of ART wgs that historically would have been 
considered RAI.

(I do note the use of RAI that probably needs to be fixed, or at least 
put into past tense.)

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:45:06 -0600

Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Minor: - S1, "Other RAI working groups develop extensions to SIP
>> that do not change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and
>> other technologies for interactive communication among humans."
>>
>> Surely we don't want to exclude these in the future.  My
>> suggestion would be to simply take out the phrase "among humans"
>
> Hi Vijay,

Ben: Thank you for considering my comments.  Inline, please.

> Actually, the "human" part was intentional. RFC5727 was primarily
> about technologies for human communication. Certainly some of those
> under consideration involved humans, or supported those that did.

I suspect that your view as an AD may be more nuanced than mine, but I
must admit that I am not entirely comfortable with limiting ART to
"human communications", as would be implied by the text as currently
written.

Certainly nothing in rfc3261 explicitly limits communications to humans.

> into ART. But 5727 was primarily about the SIP change process. That
> text in section 1 is intended to describe the scope of 5727, and in
> section 3 to describe the subset of ART wgs that historically would
> have been considered RAI.
>
> (I do note the use of RAI that probably needs to be fixed, or at
> least put into past tense.)

I believe that dropping the phrase "among humans" from the paragraph
does not impact any aspect that at least I can observe, and may indeed
have the benefit that no one in the future will claim that SIP cannot
be used for m2m communications because of the limiting phrase.

Cheers,

- vijay

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:16:35 -0600

> "human communications", as would be implied by the text as currently

We did not mean to imply that ART was limited to human communication. 
That was intended to describe a subset of ART (the historically RAI 
work; primarily the clusters of SIP, SDP,and RTP related groups plus a 
few higher-in-the-stack groups such as RTCWEB).

> be used for m2m communications because of the limiting phrase.

Would it help to characterize these as "historically among humans"?

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:59:45 -0600

Ben Campbell wrote:
> work; primarily the clusters of SIP, SDP,and RTP related groups plus
> a few higher-in-the-stack groups such as RTCWEB).

Ben, thanks again.  Yes, rtcweb I can see being primarily for human-
communications.

> Would it help to characterize these as "historically among humans"?

Yes, that would perfectly solve this minor conundrum.

Thanks,

- vijay