On 12/15/16 22:28, Ben Campbell wrote:
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.
I don't think that's true. We're talking about a registry established by
RFC 3969, which says:
"SIP and SIPS URI parameters and values for these parameters MUST be
documented in a standards-track RFC in order to be registered by
IANA."
...and...
"For the purposes of this registry, the parameter for which IANA
registration is requested MUST be defined by a standards-track RFC."
These are not ambiguous statements. We just botched our communication
with IANA.
But I think we can do the right thing here without going back and fixing
all of the issues with our ancestral documents. I mean, sure, maybe we
should clean that up too, but I don't see the value in blocking new work
on doing so.
In terms of publishing draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number, I
think there are two reasonable paths forward:
The first would be forming consensus that the two statements I quote
from 3969 above -- and the reinforcing statement in 5727 -- were all
incorrect, and that we want to explicitly (i.e., in a new document)
reverse those statements and update the corresponding registration
policy. Then, we publish -mohali- as informational.[1]
The second would be implicitly accepting established consensus around
this registry, and consequently changing -mohali- to PS.
Rather than figuring out which of these is easier (clearly, the second
is less work), I think the real question here is: do we think we got the
registration policy for SIP URI parameters wrong?
/a
____
[1] We *might* or might *not* also decide to then do something about RFC
4458 in this case, but that's a completely separate decision.