Subject: Re: [dispatch] [sipcore] I-D Action:draft-jones-sip-forum-fax-problem-statement-00.txt

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:21:26 -0600

Paul E. Jones wrote:

> As an informational RFC, the objective would be nothing more than to
> document the issues that have been identified.  It does not try to address a
> problem, but merely raise awareness to issues in a manner similar to many
> other Informational RFCs over the years.

It's been a few weeks, but we've finally also published the problem
statement that focuses on SIP/SDP issues related to FAX over IP, and it
is located here:

http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,412/Itemid,261/

There has been some discussion amongst our SIP Forum working group about
possibly combining the initial problem statement and this new one as
step towards making a document that is more likely to be accepted (and
relevant) as an informational RFC.

Are there others here who feel that would be a worthwhile exercise?

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: [email-masked]
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:54:11 -0700

In my previous email about this documents needs, I put 

>>> The more important part to publish IMHO is
>>> documenting some issues, problems, deficiencies and/or bugs in some
>>> IETF specifications that are leading to lack of interoperability in
>>> deployments. That type of problem statement would be great information
>>> to get written down in a concrete form that allows the appropriate WG
>>> to go fix the problems.

The stuff you have in 
> http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,412/Itemid,261/
is exactly the sort of level of detail I was hoping for. 

Some of these items are about issues which ITU-T protocol which are probably not appropriate for an IETF document but many of them are issues with IETF protocols, or limitations where the some other protocol may require new parameters in SDP to resolve the issues. All these seem very appropriate for an IETF document. 

So I certainly think combining some of this would result in a draft that was more useful for the IETF to help fix fax problems. 

Cullen 

> Are there others here who feel that would be a worthwhile exercise?

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:11:28 -0500

In line...

The stuff you have in 
http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,41
2/Itemid,261/
is exactly the sort of level of detail I was hoping for. 

Some of these items are about issues which ITU-T protocol which are probably
not appropriate for an IETF document but many of them are issues with IETF
protocols, or limitations where the some other protocol may require new
parameters in SDP to resolve the issues. All these seem very appropriate for
an IETF document. 

RS> Cullen, respectfully, I'm not sure I completely agree with that
sentiment. Since this is purely a Informational document that describes
issues with Real-time Communications in SIP I don't understand why it would
be inappropriate to discuss possible issues and interactions with ITU
protocols. I don't understand why things like that are "out of bounds". We
have published documents in the past that discuss issues orthogonal to IETF
protocols.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt

being a good example.

RS> The problems we are seeing in fax are directly related to the
interaction of SIP and T.38 how can we propose solutions without directly
addressing the problem? 

So I certainly think combining some of this would result in a draft that was
more useful for the IETF to help fix fax problems. 

Cullen 

> statement that focuses on SIP/SDP issues related to FAX over IP, and it
http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,41
2/Itemid,261/

Cullen Jennings

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:14:56 -0700

On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> I don't understand why things like that are "out of bounds". We

That document was to document knowledge needed about PSTN such that future people updating the IETF PS documents in this area would have enough information to not mess it up. As you of all people remember, there has been a lot of energy spend educating people about phones numbers.  I certainly did not say I thought discussion "possible issues and interactions with ITU protocols is out of scope". I think I actually said the opposite of that. However, to try and make the point clearer. The IETF is usually caution in saying "SDO X really did a bad job of protocol X".  That often has no real value but, at times, it is the right thing  the IETF does do roughly that. There has been more than one IETF document that shared that sentiment and often have a title like "X considered harmful". 

I have been trying to encourage a document that is useful in that it leads  to helping the IETF know what the IETF needs to do to make fax work better.  If you think this is the wrong direction to be going, I'm totally open to suggestions. What are is it you are actually trying to accomplish with a publication here? 

Cullen Jennings