Subject: [Sipping] DialogUsage

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:12:30 -0500

Folks -

It was just pointed out to me that I messed up and let dialog-usage  
expire.

I didn't mean to, and will be resubmitting after the Vancouver blackout.

My understanding is that people would like to advance this draft. Please
help reinforce the record if you hold that position (or object if you  
don't).

RjS

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.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: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:29:56 -0500

> help reinforce the record if you hold that position (or object if you  

Please advance the draft.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Ph.D.  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.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: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:54:18 -0400

> help reinforce the record if you hold that position (or object if you  

Robert,

I would definitely like to see this advance. Issues come up about this 
subject on the lists quite frequently. But when I talk about "dialog 
usage" people don't know what I am talking about. There is currently 
nothing to reference that even defines the term or the concept it 
represents.

I'm not sure what the latest and greatest version is. I find reference 
to the -00 version (expired) in the ietf database. But I found a -01 
version via google. Perhaps the -01 version was written but never 
submitted to ietf?

I think the -01 version is in pretty good shape, but I would like to see 
a change in the recommended handling for 481. (You do have a note that 
more discussion is needed on it.)

It is very ambiguous whether the 481 means the dialog is gone or the
usage is gone. (It can also mean the transaction is gone, but that is in
a context where it is unambiguous.)

Since there are cases when a usage is gone but the dialog is not, and
481 is currently the status to report that case, I think 481 must be
interpretted that way, since doing so causes the least damage.

Otherwise, the only change I might suggest is to tone down some of the 
editorializing.

	Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:13:13 -0500

Thanks Paul -

I don't remember what happened with -01. I'll get it straightened out  
one way or the other.
It is, at least, in the morgue at softarmor:

http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-sparks-sipping- 
dialogusage-01.txt

RjS

On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>
>
> Robert Sparks wrote:
>
>> Folks -
>> It was just pointed out to me that I messed up and let dialog- 
>> usage  expire.
>> help reinforce the record if you hold that position (or object if  
>> you  don't).
>> RjS
>>
>
> Robert,
>
> I would definitely like to see this advance. Issues come up about  
> this subject on the lists quite frequently. But when I talk about  
> "dialog usage" people don't know what I am talking about. There is  
> currently nothing to reference that even defines the term or the  
> concept it represents.
>
> I'm not sure what the latest and greatest version is. I find  
> reference to the -00 version (expired) in the ietf database. But I  
> found a -01 version via google. Perhaps the -01 version was written  
> but never submitted to ietf?
>
> I think the -01 version is in pretty good shape, but I would like  
> to see a change in the recommended handling for 481. (You do have a  
> note that more discussion is needed on it.)
>
> Otherwise, the only change I might suggest is to tone down some of  
> the editorializing.
>
>     Paul
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:14:16 -0500

There's been a flurry of on and off list responses so far, confirming,
for me at least, that there is sufficient interest to pick this back  
up and
finish it.  I think it will finish quickly.

So I propose this become an working group document, with a -00 submitted
right after the blackout. Opinions to the list on this course of  
action would be
most helpful.

Thanks,
RjS

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:25:23 -0400

IMO Yes - WG item.

	Paul

Robert Sparks wrote:
> for me at least, that there is sufficient interest to pick this back  up 
> and
> right after the blackout. Opinions to the list on this course of  action 
> would be
> most helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
> RjS
> 
>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:08:11 -0500

Robert Sparks wrote:
> There's been a flurry of on and off list responses so far,
> confirming, for me at least, that there is sufficient interest to
> pick this back  up and finish it.  I think it will finish quickly.
> 
> So I propose this become an working group document, with a -00
> submitted right after the blackout. Opinions to the list on this
> course of  action would be most helpful.

Robert:

Sounds good.

- vijay
Naperville, Illinois 60566

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:30:45 -0500

On Oct 26, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> for me at least, that there is sufficient interest to pick this  
> back up and
> submitted

It's looking like we have a consensus here.  That's timely, since the  
IESG is considering a recharter proposal for SIPPING, along with new  
milestones.

What date would you propose to target as a milestone for shipping  
this puppy to IESG?

February 2006?

--
Dean

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:58:27 -0500

I think Feb 06 is reasonable.

On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

>> confirming,
> It's looking like we have a consensus here.  That's timely, since  
> the IESG is considering a recharter proposal for SIPPING, along  
> with new milestones.
>