Subject: [sipcore] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-reason-q850-loc-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:17:50 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-reason-q850-loc-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-reason-q850-loc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* I was trying to read up on the Q.850 spec and I found out there was a much
newer version (20 years newer) that has superseded the referenced version. Is
there a particular reason to refer to the 1998 spec instead of the 2018 spec?

* I have a hard time seeing why this document needs to define names for the
spare codepoints (LOC-6,8,9,11). Either they won't be used (in which case we do
not need to define them) or they will be defined in a future revision of Q.850
(in which case they will most likely get a different name).

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:20:16 -0500

Suresh,

> (in which case they will most likely get a different name).

I was the person who originally pushed for these to be included. You can 
find the discussion thread about it at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/-YTDdZW3uQRel8u6JOeRzkqCZ9M

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:58:43 -0500

> (in which case they will most likely get a different name).

My memory is that the spares are used by some systems and/or there is a
worry that the spares might be used by some systems in the future.
Since the Q.850 value is fixed at 4 bits, by assigning SIP names to
correspond to all 16 possible values, we don't need to define a
procedure for creating new names for values that might be used in the
future.

Dale