Subject: [Sip] Some Comments: WGLC of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:19:47 -0500

Following Keith's recommendation for us to at least review the entries
for the RFCs that we authored, I have some feedback on the entry for RFC
4244 (History-Info) and a few other comments.  

RFC 4244 comments (Section 5):
------------------------------ 
The statement about the primary application being voicemail is a
mis-characterization and is based on the fact that we had so, so many
long, long discussions on the use of History-Info for voicemail. RFC
4244 is written to provide a very general mechanism and is applicable to
a variety of applications. My concern is that mis-characterization may
result in folks trying to define something new when the capability
already exists with History-Info (e.g., 3GPP p-served-user p-header).
So, I suggest something like the following change:

OLD:
RFC 4244, An Extension to SIP for Request History Information (S):
      RFC 4244 [37] defines the History-Info header field, which
      indicates information on how a call came to be routed to a
      particular destination.  Its primary application was in support of
      voicemail services.

NEW:
RFC 4244, An Extension to SIP for Request History Information (S):
      RFC 4244 [37] defines the History-Info header field, which
      indicates information on how and why a call came to be routed to a
      particular destination.  One application was in support of
      voicemail services, with details of such provided in RFC 4458.
      Other example applications include Automatic Call Distribution
      and Call Transfer scenarios. 

And, this of course, adds a reference to RFC 4458. I don't have a strong
opinion as to whether detail on that RFC shouldn't be included elsewhere
in this document.   

Other comments:
----------------
It seems that all the call flow BCPs are missing and I do think those
are really important and should be included in this document.  The only
BCP (type (B) document) listed in this document is 3PCC.  The basic call
flow document (RFC 3665) should be listed in section 3 (Core SIP).  The
PSTN call flows (RFC 3666, BCP 76) should be in PSTN Interworking
section 4. The SIPPING NAT scenarios document should be in the NAT
section 6.  These docs are all icing on the cake IMHO and help to guide
implementers in using all the other docs.

I realize it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line, but
wouldn't a reference to the service-examples call flows also be useful?

Also, wouldn't a section on IPv6 be useful?   This would include
draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07 (which is standards track and
updates RFC 3264 and is currently in the RFC Editor's Queue). 

Regards,
Mary. 

_______________________________________________
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: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:34:38 -0500

Mary has a good point, but I think an even simpler solution is the
following:

NEW:

 RFC 4244, An Extension to SIP for Request History Information (S):
       RFC 4244 [37] defines the History-Info header field, which
       indicates information on how and why a call came to be routed to
a
       particular destination.   

As for RFC 4458, I think it belongs int the "SIP Service URIs" section
and maybe the PSTN interop one (it's really a form of RFC 3087 service
URI for PSTN interop).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 08:20
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> Cc: [email-masked]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Subject: [Sip] Some Comments: WGLC of 
> draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> 
> 
> Following Keith's recommendation for us to at least review 
> the entries for the RFCs that we authored, I have some 
> feedback on the entry for RFC
> The statement about the primary application being voicemail 
> is a mis-characterization and is based on the fact that we 
> had so, so many long, long discussions on the use of 
> History-Info for voicemail. RFC
> 4244 is written to provide a very general mechanism and is 
> applicable to a variety of applications. My concern is that 
> mis-characterization may result in folks trying to define 
> something new when the capability already exists with 
> History-Info (e.g., 3GPP p-served-user p-header).
> And, this of course, adds a reference to RFC 4458. I don't 
> have a strong opinion as to whether detail on that RFC 
> shouldn't be included elsewhere
> in this document.

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:03:05 -0500

I like the suggested rewording for RFC 4244 and agree that RFC 4458
would fit well in the Service URI section.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:35 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); Jonathan Rosenberg
Cc: [email-masked]; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Subject: RE: [Sip] Some Comments: WGLC of

NEW:

> 4244 is written to provide a very general mechanism and is applicable 
> to a variety of applications. My concern is that mis-characterization 
> may result in folks trying to define something new when the capability

> And, this of course, adds a reference to RFC 4458. I don't have a 
> strong opinion as to whether detail on that RFC shouldn't be included 
> elsewhere
> in this document.