Re: Initial WG review: draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-06

"Joanne McMillen" <joanne@xxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:38:37 -0800

Title: Initial WG review: draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-06

Keith,

You raise an interesting point here. The immediate need of the 
industry so far as I know
is only for the implicit service.

Others can respond if they feel a need to have explicit 
functionality and the resulting response code/procedures
defined here for this first RFC. My guess is that we do not 
need it and should just
state that up front as beyond scope. I have not seen 
explicit support widely used in ISDN networks to 
date.
I could be wrong and live in a cave though. ;-)

What do others think? Should we account for that in this first 
RFC or just rule it out
and save "explicit" support for a future update as 
needed?

Joanne

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
  To: Mary Barnes ; sipping@xxxxxxxx 

  Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo 
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 5:30 
  PM
  Subject: Re:  Initial WG review: 
  draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-06

  I was generally OK with this document, but I would still 
  like to see a response on my last comments on the use of the option tag, and 
  the associated requirement clause that causes us to need 
  it.

  Essentially if the aim of the document is only to 
  interwork with the ISDN user-to-user service 1 implicit, then we don't need 
  the option tag.

  If the aim of the document is to interwork with the ISDN 
  user-to-user service 1 explicit, then we would need the option tag in a 
  Require header, I think we need to make sure of a number of 
  things:

  -    as all ISDN user user services can be 
  separately explicit, is this going to ultimately generate 3 option 
  tags.
  -    have we collected all the 
  requirements for interworking with the explicit service, which requires 
  interworking with explicit signalling in the ISDN. In particular are there any 
  distinct response code requirements.

  If the aim of the document is only to interwork with the 
  ISDN user-to-user service 1 implicit, but there are other use cases that 
  require the option-tag, then I think the document should be open about these 
  so we can examine the requirements in the light of those other use 
  cases.

  regards

  Keith

    From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx 
    [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary 
    Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:49 AM
To: 
    sipping@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo
Subject: 
     Initial WG review: 
    draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-06

    Hi folks, 
    This email is intended to announce an initial WG 
    review for the following  document: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-06.txt 

    There was strong consensus to complete the 
    problem statement and requirements in the SIPPING WG session (i.e., WGLC) 
    and then propose that the solution be worked in SIP WG - with the obvious 
    understanding that SIP WG must go through the process of taking on a new 
    work item.   And, of course, the chairs will work with the AD to 
    get the appropriate milestones added to SIPPING WG charter.
    In order to progress this document in the SIPPING 
    WG, we would like at least 3 (ideally 4) dedicated reviewers. So, please let 
    us know ASAP if you would be willing to serve as a reviewer.  If we 
    don't get volunteers, I will pick on people, but it would be great to get 
    some new reviewers into the pool.  
    In terms of feedback, as well as technical 
    comments, we would like to hear views on whether this doc is ready for WGLC 
    (note that this document has been in the WG as an individual draft for over 
    two years). 
    Please send any and all comments on or before 
    Dec. 22nd, 2008 (3 weeks time). 
    Regards, 
Mary. 
SIPPING WG co-chair 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing 
  list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for 
  NEW development of the application of SIP
Use 
  sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use 
  sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP