Subject: [Sip] Call-Info purpose

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:26:54 +0200

Hisham,

in your draft below, you mention that Jonathan pointed out that:

" It was also discovered that there was no IANA registry set up for the
    "purpose" parameter in the Call-info header of the Session Initiation
    Protocol [1]. This document sets up the IANA registry."

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khartabil-sip-policy-uri-call-info-purpose-00

When I check the registry, defined in the draft below, I can see that 
"purpose" was already registered (page 6).

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-parameter-registry-01.txt

Header Field                   Parameter Name     Reference
____________________________________________________________

[...]

Call-Info                      purpose            RFC 3261

Regards,

Gonzalo

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:28:48 +0200

Hi Gonzalo,

You're right - the parameter registration is handled by the below draft. 
But what is missing is a registry for the 'purpose' values. That's what 
we're porposing to set up, and populate with the already defined set of 
{icon, info, card} per RFC3261, and the new proposed 'policy-uri' value.

Cheers,
Aki

ext Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> This communication is confidential and intended solely for the 
> addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution 
> is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in 
> error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and 
> delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.
> 
> E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, 
> interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only 
> send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any 
> such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any 
> consequences thereof.
>

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:09:28 +0200

Hi,

yes, when we were creating the registries for header field and URI 
parameters I thought of creating another registry for the values of some 
parameters (e.g., the one you are dealing with)... but given the huge 
amount of discussions we had on the other registries, I gave up for the 
time being...

In any case, I will check what is going on with the IANA and get back to 
you...

Gonzalo

Aki Niemi wrote:
>> interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we 
>> only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for 
>> any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or 
>> any consequences thereof.
>>

-- 
Gonzalo Camarillo         Phone :  +358  9 299 33 71
Oy L M Ericsson Ab        Mobile:  +358 40 702 35 35
Telecom R&D               Fax   :  +358  9 299 30 52
FIN-02420 Jorvas          Email :  [email-masked]
Finland                   http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:12:50 -0500

> In any case, I will check what is going on with the IANA and get back to 

Check for what? The absence of this registry is a bug in RFC3261; it 
should have been created there (indeed, its mentioned in the spec, but 
there are no IANA considerations associated with it). So, we need to set 
it up.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:44:54 +0200

Jonathan,

 > Check for what?

as you know, we both agree on this, and that's why we set both 
registries up... nevertheless, I have heard from the IANA (and from the 
IESG about the IANA) that they are overloaded and that we should not 
hold our breath waiting for the RFCs-to-be defining the registries to be 
published as RFCs...

Since we will have *many* RFCs-to-be that will depend on these 
registries and on any new registry we may need to create, I want to make 
sure that the IANA understands that we are in a hurry. That's whay I am 
going to check...

Gonzalo

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

>> parameters I thought of creating another registry for the values of 
>> some parameters (e.g., the one you are dealing with)... but given the 
>> huge amount of discussions we had on the other registries, I gave up 
>> for the time being...
>>
>> In any case, I will check what is going on with the IANA and get back 
>> to you...
> 
>