Subject: Re: [sipcore] [Sip] SIPCORE -- If you're not subscribed, you're missing stuff

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:27:04 -0500

I have an issue with the target-uri document being proposed as the WG
document for the target-uri deliverable. This was not the consensus in
SF per my recollection (which may be biased) nor per the SIP WG minutes:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/sip.html

Which state:
"Issue: Progress 4244bis, target-uri draft, or both?
In the absence of a clear consensus, the chairs proposed that both
documents proceed and we'll hope that further discussion gives us a
consensus."
 
Now, I realize that there are now new chairs, but I don't think that
should change the WG consensus from the SIP WG session. 

I also think that many of the folks involved in the discussion had not
considered (or were not aware) that the 4244bis document includes the
normative text from target-uri - i.e., the solution in 4244bis was
carefully integrated into base History-Info functionality and is
identical to that in the target-uri document with the exception of the
naming of the tag.  Also an important consideration is that in the end,
the target-uri document would need a lot more text to address security
and privacy considerations and in the end would duplicate a lot of
what's in 4244.  

It was my understanding from the minutes that the discussion was to
continue as to whether we would merge the two documents or agree one or
the other as a WG deliverable. 

Regards,
Mary

--btw listening to the audio is quite help and amusing...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adam Roach
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:40 PM
To: SIP WG
Subject: [Sip] SIPCORE -- If you're not subscribed, you're missing stuff

This message is for those of you who haven't subscribed to SIPCORE yet. 
We're doing the heavy lifting of spinning stuff up right now, and you'll
probably want to pay attention (both so you understand what's going on,
and also to make sure the new chairs don't flub something up in the
transition).

Because they are of particular import, I'm going to point out the
following two messages on the SIP list:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg00004.html

...and...

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg00005.html

If you didn't get your own copy of these messages, please double-check
that you're subscribed to the SIPCORE mailing list:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

/a
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
[email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:35:43 -0500

> should change the WG consensus from the SIP WG session.

However, the minutes from IETF 73 read:

Topic: URI and Parameter Delivery
Led by Jonaathan Rosenberg
Slides presented
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-00.txt

...

Poll: Shall WG adopt this draft towards our charter deliverable on the
topic? Chairs reported a strong consensus to do so.
So which WG consensus of which SIP WG session do you not want to change?

> the other as a WG deliverable.

That's also consistent with my notes from SIP at 74.

My best guess is that RFC 4244bis goes forward, and that target-uri- 
delivery turns into a "How to use H-I to meet the URI delivery use  
cases" document.

--
Dean

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:02:05 -0500

I'm suggesting to change the decision from IETF-73 and accept the more
recent realization that including normative text in another document
rather than 4244bis will be fraught with error and I can't see how that
is a good idea from a development perspective - you can't just implement
the target-uri document.  

Now, I don't have a problem if folks can accept that the target-uri
document might change such that the normative functionality is in
4244bis.   And, this was consensus from IETF-73 per those minutes:
"Issue: Normative behavior update for RFC 4244

Consensus noted to revise RFC 4244, and fix some other known problems
with it at teh same time. MAry Barnes volunteered to edit the
document."
 
So, there is a conflict in terms of accepting target-uri document as the
only deliverable for that milestone in the IETF-73 meeting.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:36 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] [Sip] SIPCORE -- If you're not subscribed, you're
missing stuff

...

> continue as to whether we would merge the two documents or agree one 
> or the other as a WG deliverable.
>

--
Dean

---

From: Hans Erik van Elburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:18:40 +0200

Hi Mary,

I believe that in the absence of consensus as the minutes correctly state,
the the target-uri document should remain the WG document for the target-uri
deliverable.

4424bis has another purpose, namely to fix the 4424. If at a certain moment
in time it turns out that 4424bis is the appropriate document to contain
normative text for target uri delivery then we can always decide to do so.
At this stage it is to early to take that decision, given the confused state
of the target-uri discussion.

/Hans Erik van Elburg

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Dean Willis <[email-masked]>wrote:

> My best guess is that RFC 4244bis goes forward, and that
> target-uri-delivery turns into a "How to use H-I to meet the URI delivery
> use cases" document.
>
> --
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Hans Erik van Elburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:21:42 +0200

Hi Mary,

/Hans Erik van Elburg

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:34:57 -0500

No - the discussion for 4244(bis) (extracted below) was entirely in the
context of the discussion for the target-uri document. You can go back
and listen to the audio to verify that.  And, I've stated long before
IETF-73 that it would be fairly straightforward to update 4244 to
accomodate the target-uri requirements and while we were doing that,
there were a few other fixes we could do. 
 
Mary. 

________________________________

From: Hans Erik van Elburg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:22 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Dean Willis; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Target-uri document as SIPCORE WG document? (was
RE: [Sip] SIPCORE -- If you're not subscribed, you're missing stuff

Hi Mary,

I believe that in the absence of consensus as the minutes correctly
state, the the target-uri document should remain the WG document for the
target-uri deliverable.

4424bis has another purpose, namely to fix the 4424. If at a certain
moment in time it turns out that 4424bis is the appropriate document to
contain normative text for target uri delivery then we can always decide
to do so. At this stage it is to early to take that decision, given the
confused state of the target-uri discussion.

/Hans Erik van Elburg

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
wrote:

	I'm suggesting to change the decision from IETF-73 and accept
the more
	recent realization that including normative text in another
document
	rather than 4244bis will be fraught with error and I can't see
how that
	is a good idea from a development perspective - you can't just
implement
	the target-uri document.
	
	Now, I don't have a problem if folks can accept that the
target-uri
	document might change such that the normative functionality is
in
	4244bis.   And, this was consensus from IETF-73 per those
minutes:
	"Issue: Normative behavior update for RFC 4244
	
	Consensus noted to revise RFC 4244, and fix some other known
problems
	with it at teh same time. MAry Barnes volunteered to edit the
	document."
	
	So, there is a conflict in terms of accepting target-uri
document as the
	only deliverable for that milestone in the IETF-73 meeting.
	
	Mary.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
	Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:36 PM
	To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [sipcore] [Sip] SIPCORE -- If you're not
subscribed, you're
	missing stuff

	
	> SF per my recollection (which may be biased) nor per the SIP
WG
	> minutes:

	
	
	...
	
	Poll: Shall WG adopt this draft towards our charter deliverable
on the
	topic? Chairs reported a strong consensus to do so.
	So which WG consensus of which SIP WG session do you not want to
change?

	
	My best guess is that RFC 4244bis goes forward, and that
target-uri-
	delivery turns into a "How to use H-I to meet the URI delivery
use
	cases" document.
	
	--
	Dean