Subject: [Iptel] Minutes for IETF 58

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:52:28 -0500

Folks,

Enclosed are the proposed minutes for the iptel meeting at IETF 58. 
Thanks to Tom Taylor for taking good notes here. We need to submit 
these for the proceedings tomorrow; so if you have any comments, 
please send them asap. APologies for the lateness in getting these out.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

--------------

IETF 58 IPTEL Meeting Minutes
Reported by Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>

The IPTEL Working Group met on Wednesday morning, 12 Novemeber.  The
meeting was chaired by Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> and Jonathan
Rosenberg <[email-masked]>.

The agenda was accepted as proposed:
  1) 10 minute status update
  2) user=phone discussion.

1. Status
    ======
Cullen Jennings presented.

CPL (draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-08.txt)

The draft was reworked to remove dependencies on caller prefs.  The
XML basis was changed to Schema from DTD. WG Last Call is complete.
Will send to IESG for reinsertion into the RFC Editor's queue.

RFC2806bis (draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-02.txt)

The draft has completed WG Last Call.  It will be submitted to the
IESG unless the discussion regarding the user=phone parameter leads to
changes.

TGREP (draft-ietf-iptel-tgrep-02.txt)

The draft is ready for final NITS review, WG Last Call.

TRIP MIB (draft-ietf-iptel-trip-mib-09.txt)

After lots of discussion back and forth between the editors and the
MIB doctor, another revision has come out.  The document is now ready
for sending to the IESG.

Other stuff:

Calling Party's Category tel: URI parameter (draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-00.txt)
tel: URI parameters (draft-yu-tel-url-08.txt)
trunk group (draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-00.txt)

Need expressions of interest to take these forward.

Tom Taylor mentioned that the Yu and Mahy drafts were of particular
interest to those working on interworking of SIP to the PSTN.
Jonathan responded that the question is whether the proposed
functionality is needed in the SIP network.  Flemming Andreasen
<[email-masked]> and Richard Stastny <[email-masked]>
indicated their interest in those drafts.  Another speaker indicated
his interest in the trunk group draft.

Cullen said he would contact James Yu to see if he was still
interested in carrying his draft forward.  Jon Peterson indicated that
James was still interested, but had some concern on the content of
2806bis.

Jonathan emphasized that he was only prepared to add these drafts as
WG items if he sees interest on the list. He asked for list comments
and/or document revisions by mid-December, or we would not continue.

A milestones update slide was presented.  The chairs are looking to
close the WG by March.  There was no comment on the proposed
milestones.

2) user=phone discussion
    =====================

Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]> presented the issue based on slides
worked out between him and Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>.
These slides reflected the results of discussion on the SIPPING list,
also captured by Rohan's draft
(draft-mahy-sipping-user-equals-phone-00.txt).

There is just one major point of disagreement.

The points of agreement:

a) Don't mess with the user part of a SIP URI that isn't yours.

b) Some SIP domains have user parts which are numbers.  Sometimes
these can conflict with phone numbers.

c) Some people need user=phone.

Disagreement: how to distinguish "dial strings" from phone numbers.

The subsequent discussion was lively and wide ranging.  The following
notes capture a number of the points, but not all of them.

Tom Taylor noted that number transformations occur at various points
along the call path, not just at the first hop.

Brian Rosen pointed out that user=phone is broken no matter what, and
his proposed fix is one way to solve the problem.

Two speakers expressed the view that interoperability is more likely
to be achieved if the approach taken was to use separate phone
contexts for telephone numbers and dial strings.

Francois Audet <[email-masked]> asked why the proposed
dialstring syntax used E and F rather than * and #.  It appears that
2806bis doesn't allow * and #.

Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> expressed a preference for
explicit semantics hence, in this case, allowing the user=dialstring
parameter.

Someone remarked that if you don't want to put phone-context in, then
you shouldn't set user=phone.

Jonathan Rosenberg wondered how developer could distinguish a
telephone number from a dial string if the IETF cannot.  Context
defines a name space.  That should be adequate.

Dean Willis <[email-masked]> made the point that "9,411" is
actually a request for a gateway to provide a specific service --
outpulsing according to a specific cadence.  This is a specific
instance of the general class of service requests.

Brian Rosen picked up Dean's point and elaborated on it.  He has a
further need: to provide guidance to a proxy server that serves
multiple domains.

Henning said this provided further support for user=dialstring; it is
a parameter pointing to a specific operation.

Richard Stastny added his support for user=dialstring because phones
cannot dial E.164 numbers.

Dick Knight <[email-masked]> pointed out that this was
effectively pushing the distinction problem back to the UA.

Another person pointed out we already have two mechanisms to transmit
the requirement to pause: KPML and 2833.  We don't need another.

Tom Taylor repeated his point that the network may need to do number
translation beyond the first hop -- hence it is desirable to have a
general mechanism to indicate that the user part is in a
context-specific form.

Richard Stastny agreed that digit manipulation is definitely needed at
the first hop, but shouldn't be needed thereafter.

Brian Rosen explained why KPML wouldn't work.  It is easier to get
user=dialstring to work.

Francois Audet expressed his view that allowing user=dialstring not a
big deal.  Pause is a different discussion.

At this point the chairs used a series of hums to determine the
general opinion of the meeting.

   a) agreed: the presence of the user=phone parameter implies that the
   user part conforms to the specification of the tel: URI.

   b) agreed: user=dialstring accepted as a new SIP URI
   parameter. (Pause is a separate discussion.)  Further to this last
   point there were some strong objections to NOT allowing
   user=dialstring, little in the way of strong objection to
   user=dialstring.  The chairs decared consensus on that point.

Brian Rosen volunteered to write a draft defining user=dialstring.
This will be an individual contribution to SIPPING, to be considered
at the request of IPTEL.

There was a split view on whether getting pauses to the gateway is a
problem.  The discussion will be taken to the list.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel