> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > At this point I will defer to the relevant ADs. +1 on that :-) > As far as I can tell, although the entry was created by an Informational RFC, the registry still claims that it is standards track. > And since this document is defining behavior, it behaves more like a standards track document than an Informational one. > > But it is up to you folks. In teh end, all I can do is raise the question, not decide it :-) So the registry takes PS to change it. And by the current SIP rules, I suspect (not sure) that an update to 4458 would also have to be PS. So really not sure how one gets around this not being PS. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/15/16 11:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I see your point about this adding a value to the entry created by RFC 4458. >>> Is there a reason this can not simply be PS? The fact that 4458 is Informational does not, as far as I can tell, justify continuing the error. While this is for a 3GPP usage, it appears to have been reviewed by the Dispatch WG sufficiently to justify PS. >>> One could argue that there is a down-ref issue, >>> but the fact that the field is in a standards-track required registry would seem to make that a moot point. >>> >> >> Do you think it makes sense to make some new values for “cause” into a proposed standard when “cause” itself is informational? That seems like a pretty big downref issue, as such issues go. (For the record, I could be convinced to re-run this LC as PS, but I suspect that would lead to objections in the opposite direction.) >> >> Right now, the situation is a standards-action registry with a informational entry. That’s clearly broken, but I’m not sure that _this_ draft is the place to fix it. >> >> Also, if it makes any difference—even there there was discussion in dispatch, this is not a dispatch work item. >> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> PS: It would seem that WG discussion of that sort is something we would like to see in Shepherd writeups. >> >> There’s two paragraphs on the subject in section (1) of the shepherd writeup :-) (but it wasn’t a working group discussion per se.) >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> >>> >>> On 12/15/16 11:28 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> Hi Joel, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the comments. There has been a fair amount of discussion >>>> about the status of the draft. The situation is clearly not optimal, and >>>> I welcome input on how to straighten it out. >>>> >>>> The rational so far has been that this draft updates RFC 4588, which is >>>> informational. It adds some additional values and related semantics for >>>> the "cause" parameter from 4588. It does not register new parameters; >>>> rather it adds itself as a reference in the existing "cause" >>>> registration. This is mainly a courtesy to readers. (There is no >>>> sub-registry for "cause" parameter values.) We might could get by >>>> without that change, since in a perfect world people following the IANA >>>> reference to 4588 would notice the "Updated by..." tag. >>>> >>>> The gotcha is that RFC 4588 would not be possible as an informational >>>> today; it would not have standing to register the "cause" parameter. But >>>> at the time it was published, there was a lack of clarity around the >>>> "standards action" policy for the SIP URI parameters registry. Making >>>> the new values from _this_ draft standards track, when the parameter >>>> itself is not, doesn't seem appropriate. We had some discussion about >>>> whether we should promote 4588 to PS, but there was not consensus to do >>>> so when it was published, and I don't see reason to expect that to have >>>> changed. >>>> >>>> This draft is primarily intended to meet a need in 3GPP, where I >>>> understand they are effectively already doing this. Would it help to >>>> more tightly scope this as "Here's something 3GPP is doing..." rather >>>> than as a general mechanism? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Ben. >>>> >>>> On 15 Dec 2016, at 21:57, Joel Halpern wrote: >>>> >>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>>> >>>>> Major: >>>>> This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new >>>>> behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info. I >>>>> am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC. It looks >>>>> like it either Proposed Standard or experimental. Yes, I see that RFC >>>>> 4458, which this updates is Informational. But just because we did it >>>>> wrong before does not make that behavior correct now. In addition to >>>>> my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC 3969 >>>>> and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made by >>>>> a standards track RFC. >>>>> >>>>> Minor: >>>>> Given our emphasis on IPv6 over IPv4, would it not make sense for >>>>> the examples to use IPv6 addresses? (Inspired by the Id-Nits alert.) >> >> >