From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 10:22:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14481 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpsD-0005AD-7J for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:22:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1FM52C019845 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:22:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpsD-00059z-3G for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:22:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14478 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpsA-0003El-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:22:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpsA-0003Ei-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:22:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQps9-00059R-F2; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQprJ-00058u-2R for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:21:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14443 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQprG-0003Dr-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:21:06 -0500 Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163] helo=ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpqu-0003Db-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:20:44 -0500 Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (h135-1-218-70.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hB1FJS014631; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:19:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from lucent.com (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id hB1FJRU18386; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:19:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3FCB5BF2.2050801@lucent.com> From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Wireless Networks Research and Development User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Medhavi Bhatia CC: iptel@ietf.org References: <035801c3b49f$561f2fb0$0200a8c0@laptopeng3> <3FCABCCC.7090700@lucent.com> <061a01c3b7cc$ad5d2540$0200a8c0@laptopeng3> In-Reply-To: <061a01c3b7cc$ad5d2540$0200a8c0@laptopeng3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Iptel] Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-00.txt Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:19:14 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Medhavi Bhatia wrote: > Vijay and Cullen - Thanks for the quick response! > > One comment we had concerned the syntax used in the Contact header, > which does not conform to the tel -> sip url conversion specified in RFC > 3261. The placement of tgrp= in the examples in section 5 seems to be in > the url parameters whereas we think it should be in the user parameters. Medhavi: This was already identified as a bug and has been corrected in the latest rev. > Also the draft has tried to specify the format of the trunk group > identifier and include the notion of namespace in it. I had some > discussion with one of our partners who pointed out that even within an > administrative domain, chances are that trunk groups may clash due to > misconfiguration. His suggestion was to make the user configuration > unique by appending a switch identifier which is normally unique, > thereby altering the syntax of the identifier. Is that something that is > being considered at this point ? We would like to get involved. That's a good consideration, however, we would have a hard time making it part of any standardization. What followed the "tgrp=" was a token, and as such can be constructed in any manner so as to render it unique within a given organizational boundary (or cross-organization boundaries). Using a switch identifier as a prefix, as you note above, is one means to impart uniqueness to the token. We can have more discussions on this aspect after you have digested the rev'ed I-D later on this week. Thanks for your comments and interest. Cheers, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:30:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18932 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrs5-0003dk-Bv for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:30:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1HU5Ie013991 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:30:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrs5-0003da-8N for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18905 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrs3-0005cx-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:30:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrs3-0005ct-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:30:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrs2-0003d0-39; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:30:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgc0-0003fj-IT for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:28:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26304 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgbx-0003FZ-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:28:41 -0500 Received: from leviathan.cnchost.com ([207.155.252.18]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgbx-0003FV-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:28:41 -0500 Received: from laptopeng3 (pool-138-88-14-76.res.east.verizon.net [138.88.14.76]) by leviathan.cnchost.com id AAA29704; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:27:20 -0500 (EST) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.16] Message-ID: <061a01c3b7cc$ad5d2540$0200a8c0@laptopeng3> From: "Medhavi Bhatia" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Cc: References: <035801c3b49f$561f2fb0$0200a8c0@laptopeng3> <3FCABCCC.7090700@lucent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0616_01C3B7A2.C3DD96D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: [Iptel] Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-00.txt Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:33:39 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0616_01C3B7A2.C3DD96D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vijay and Cullen - Thanks for the quick response! One comment we had concerned the syntax used in the Contact header, which does not conform to the tel -> sip url conversion specified in RFC 3261. The placement of tgrp= in the examples in section 5 seems to be in the url parameters whereas we think it should be in the user parameters. Also the draft has tried to specify the format of the trunk group identifier and include the notion of namespace in it. I had some discussion with one of our partners who pointed out that even within an administrative domain, chances are that trunk groups may clash due to misconfiguration. His suggestion was to make the user configuration unique by appending a switch identifier which is normally unique, thereby altering the syntax of the identifier. Is that something that is being considered at this point ? We would like to get involved. Thanks - Medhavi. ----- Original Message ----- From: Vijay K. Gurbani To: Medhavi Bhatia Cc: iptel@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-00.txt Medhavi Bhatia wrote: > Folks, > > Is this draft being revived ? We had some questions/comments on the > syntax specified in it and were wondering if this was being worked on or > dropped. > > Medhavi. Medhavi: This work is being done in the IPTEL WG. The work continues; at the 58th IETF in Minneapolis, there were some discussions between the authors. The result of these is a new revision to the I-D. The ball is now in my court; I am working on incorporating some previous comments and our discussions at the 58th IETF. I plan to have the rev'ed I-D to the co-authors by the middle of the first week of December and to the IPTEL WG list shortly thereafter. So, please stay tuned till next week. ------=_NextPart_000_0616_01C3B7A2.C3DD96D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Vijay and Cullen - Thanks for the = quick=20 response!
 
One comment we had concerned the = syntax used in=20 the Contact header, which does not conform to the tel -> sip url = conversion=20 specified in RFC 3261. The placement of tgrp=3D in the examples in = section 5 seems=20 to be in the url parameters whereas we think it should be in the user=20 parameters.
 
Also the draft has tried to = specify the=20 format of the trunk group identifier and include the notion of namespace = in it.=20 I had some discussion with one of our partners who pointed out that even = within=20 an administrative domain, chances are that trunk groups may clash due to = misconfiguration. His suggestion was to make the user configuration = unique=20 by appending a switch identifier which is normally unique, thereby = altering=20 the syntax of the identifier. Is that something that is being considered = at this=20 point ? We would like to get involved.
 
Thanks - Medhavi.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Vijay K. = Gurbani=20
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 = 11:00=20 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip]=20 draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-00.txt

Medhavi Bhatia wrote:
> Folks,
>  =
> Is=20 this draft being revived ? We had some questions/comments on the =
>=20 syntax specified in it and were wondering if this was being worked on = or=20
> dropped.
> 
> = Medhavi.

Medhavi:

This=20 work is being done in the IPTEL WG.  The work
continues; at = the 58th=20 IETF in Minneapolis, there
were some discussions between the=20 authors.
The result of these is a new revision to the I-D.
The = ball is=20 now in my court; I am working on
incorporating some previous = comments and=20 our
discussions at the 58th IETF.  I plan to
have the = rev'ed I-D to=20 the co-authors by the middle
of the first week of December and to = the IPTEL=20 WG
list shortly thereafter.

So, please stay tuned till next=20 week.

------=_NextPart_000_0616_01C3B7A2.C3DD96D0-- _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 21:17:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09770 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUzLE-0005Td-3g for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBD2HBFw020956 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUzLD-0005Rv-EG for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09755 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUzLA-0000Na-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUzLA-0000NW-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUzL4-0005RE-7x; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUzKy-0005Qw-Sw for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:16:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09744 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUzKw-0000NN-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:16:54 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUzKv-0000N0-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:16:53 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn4-133.cisco.com [10.21.80.133]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBD2GLrX015691; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:16:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FDA7674.7F0D0239@cisco.com> From: Flemming Andreasen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Yu, James" , list iptel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Iptel] Comments on draft-yu-tel-url-08 Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:16:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've taken a closer look at the draft-yu-tel-url-08.txt and have some questions and comments on it. Non-Editorial Comments: - The document is fairly focused on how you can use the tel-URL extensions defined here in SIP. At least in the Abstract and Section 1, I'd suggest loosening this coupling a bit as the subject of the document is the tel-URL extensions rather than how to use them with SIP. Also, it might be worthwhile making it clear, that these extensions can be used with any protocol that happens to make use of the tel-URL, e.g. H.323 as well. In line with this, I'd suggest removing Section 8. - Lack of requirements: While reading through the document, I felt that the document was a bit "loose" in some places and relied on the reader just knowing how these things work. It then occurred to me, that there is not a single RFC 2119 requirements word to be found in the document which doesn't seem quite right. I'd suggest taking another pass and adding some RFC 2119 requirement words throughout (or at least in Section 5 where firmer language and additional detail is generally needed). - JIP Parameter: It is listed in the Abbreviations section but not referenced in the doc. That's of course a minor issue but there is a bigger issue of whether we should have support for the JIP parameter as I don't believe you have full support for LNP without it (billing problem when originator has been ported if I understand correctly). - Section 5, second last paragraph states that: "The "CIC" can be expanded to include VoIP carriers and other types of carriers in the same country or under the same country code so that all carriers can be identified in the IP domain for routing purpose." I don't quite understand what this means. Is this something the document defines and if so how ? Either way, this should be clarified. - Section 6.1, last paragraph: I don't follow the recommendation. The example just above the text that talks about "the example described above" does not show the "rn" parameter, and if the "rn" parameter is not included in the previous example, I'm not sure how it would work. Please elaborate. - Section 9: The security considerations should provide guidelines for how to remedy the threats identified. General editorial comments: - There are numerous format/conversion problems throughout the document (doesn't look like pure ASCII). - Use of commas and periods inside or outside double-quotes. This is clearly a style issue with no universally agreed upon rules, but clarity argues for placing them outside the quotes when you are referencing a literal value rather than quoting a piece of text, i.e. "rn," should rather be "rn", IMO. - Should probably also reference Security Considerations section at the end of Section 1. - The document treats POTS and free-phone numbers as two different things; are they ? See for example, Section 1, 2nd paragraph. - The document talks about the extensions as being "proposed". May want to reword to "defined" or something like that. Detailed editorial comments: p. 1 OLD: ABTRACT NEW: ABSTRACT Section 1, 3rd paragraph OLD: associate NEW: associated Abbreviations: OLD: Telephony Routing Information Protocol NEW: Telephony Routing over IP OLD: Uniform Resource Locators NEW: Uniform Resource Locator Section 4, 2nd and 3rd paragraph (i.e. twice) OLD: POT number NEW: POTS number Section 5, ABNF OLD: ";rn" NEW: "rn" Section 5, 2nd paragraph after ABNF: OLD: identify a country code NEW: identify an E.164 country code Section 5, 4th paragraph after ABNF: The sentence: "It is also possible that the SIP protocol can be used for the NP query. In that case, the response (e.g., 302 Moved) to the SIP message may carry the NP related information in the "tel" or "sip" URL format with the parameters proposed in this document." doesn't belong in this document IMO (unless you want to define that mechanism here as well). Section 5, 5th paragraph after ABNF: "A new address family in the Telephony Routing Information Protocol (TRIP)[7] has been defined for cic." Where is this defined - is there a reference ? Regards Flemming _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 16:05:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05270 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWiqx-0007I5-TH for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHL57Kp028021 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWiqx-0007Hs-PD for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05251 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiqv-00028J-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiqu-00028B-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiqu-000288-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWiqt-0007H8-B4; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWiqB-0007GQ-M0 for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:04:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05193 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiqA-000274-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:04:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiq9-00026x-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:04:17 -0500 Received: from broadsoft.com ([198.104.184.110]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiq8-00026u-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:04:17 -0500 Received: from tate (host4.brodsoft.com [66.160.10.4]) by broadsoft.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id hBHL4GJC063169 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:04:17 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Brett Tate" To: Message-ID: <004e01c3c4e1$97707080$2b01a8c0@broadsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-00 Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:06:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have reviewed draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-00; and I have no real comments. I am mainly only posting this in response to the following email to help progress the draft since the cpc parameter is being used by various vendors. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/iptel/current/msg00464.html Section 2 of draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-00 mentions that the following are potential additional values: hospital, police, cellular, and cellular-roaming. Does the resolution concerning finding a "stable reference" have to be provided prior the draft becoming an RFC? _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 12:58:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05925 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:58:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX2PB-0007Nd-Cp for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:57:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIHvj0h028365 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:57:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX2PB-0007NQ-8l for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:57:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05903 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX2P9-0007NL-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:57:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX2P8-0007ND-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:57:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX2LC-00072x-01 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:53:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX23C-0005jG-VW; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX22X-0005iO-33 for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:34:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04387 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX22L-00060u-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:34:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX21u-0005zr-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:33:44 -0500 Received: from airwolf.sentito.com ([65.202.222.11]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX21t-0005v6-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:33:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 32524 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2003 17:32:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO SAJAK) (65.202.222.2) by airwolf.sentito.com with SMTP; 18 Dec 2003 17:32:01 -0000 From: "Shan Lu" To: Message-ID: <000201c3c58c$d24c3990$eb00000a@SAJAK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3311 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <004e01c3c4e1$97707080$2b01a8c0@broadsoft.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Iptel] Comment on draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-00 Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:31:50 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, The issue I had with this draft is what happens if the phone number is unavailable? How do you convey CPC information? 2806bis02 currently does not allow the number itself to be absent. But conceptually it twists the logic a bit to make CPC dependent on calling party number which, like CPC, is one of many parameters that collectively describe call origination point. BTW, the above comment applies to draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-00.txt as well when that extension is used in Contact header. Thanks, Shan Lu _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 13:54:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08210 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3Hf-0001LR-Pa for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIIs3Si005163 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3Hf-0001LA-M3 for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08197 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Hd-0001Mp-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Hb-0001Mi-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Hb-0001Mf-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:53:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3Hc-0001KZ-SO; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3Gr-0001IY-JT for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:53:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08167 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Gp-0001Lm-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:53:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Go-0001Lf-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:53:10 -0500 Received: from [63.113.44.69] (helo=mail3.dynamicsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Gn-0001Kx-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:53:09 -0500 Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.46.85]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hBIIqgmR003686 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:52:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE1F76C.9050408@dynamicsoft.com> From: Jonathan Rosenberg Organization: dynamicsoft User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list iptel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Iptel] Minutes for IETF 58 Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:52:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 The IPTEL Working Group met on Wednesday morning, 12 Novemeber. The meeting was chaired by Cullen Jennings and Jonathan Rosenberg . 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 and Richard Stastny 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 presented the issue based on slides worked out between him and Brian Rosen . 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 asked why the proposed dialstring syntax used E and F rather than * and #. It appears that 2806bis doesn't allow * and #. Henning Schulzrinne 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 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 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 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 14:04:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09120 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3RL-000287-Ay for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIJ43bU008187 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3RL-00027y-6K for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09099 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3RI-00025z-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3RH-00025s-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3RH-00025p-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3RJ-00026S-BI; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX3Qj-00025x-UB for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09078 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Qh-00024Q-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Qg-00024J-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:23 -0500 Received: from [63.113.44.69] (helo=mail3.dynamicsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX3Qg-00022O-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:22 -0500 Received: from dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.46.85]) by mail3.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hBIJ2vmR003693 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:02:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE1F9D4.8010301@dynamicsoft.com> From: Jonathan Rosenberg Organization: dynamicsoft User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list iptel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Iptel] Consensus to add trunk group and freephone/np documents as wg items? Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:02:44 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, As per our discussion during IETF 58, before we could adopt draft-yu-tel-url and draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group as working group items, the chairs needed to see sufficient interest and comments on the list, in addition to author support, before moving forward. It seems there is sufficient interest, and therefore the chairs would like to formally add these documents as work items. I believe we have consensus for this; please speak up if you disagree. Thanks, Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza Chief Technology Officer Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 dynamicsoft jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 15:09:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04391 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWMZ-0007cz-Fv for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMK9BIG029315 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWMZ-0007ck-Ck for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04321 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWMW-0001M5-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWMU-0001Lo-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWMU-0001Ll-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWMP-0007bH-Jo; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWLf-0007aJ-Al for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:08:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04218 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWLc-0001Kt-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:08:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWLa-0001Kc-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWLa-0001Jh-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:08:10 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2003 20:09:01 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-734.cisco.com [10.21.66.222]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBMK7blx009321; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:07:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FE74F09.4ED82ED8@cisco.com> From: Flemming Andreasen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Rosenberg CC: list iptel Subject: Re: [Iptel] Consensus to add trunk group and freephone/np documents as wg items? References: <3FE1F9D4.8010301@dynamicsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Telephony List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:07:37 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No disagreement; just wanted to check that the same applies to draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-00. -- Flemming Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > Folks, > > As per our discussion during IETF 58, before we could adopt > draft-yu-tel-url and draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group as working group > items, the chairs needed to see sufficient interest and comments on > the list, in addition to author support, before moving forward. It > seems there is sufficient interest, and therefore the chairs would > like to formally add these documents as work items. I believe we have > consensus for this; please speak up if you disagree. > > Thanks, > Jonathan R. > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza > Chief Technology Officer Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 > dynamicsoft > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Iptel mailing list > Iptel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel