From vkg@bell-labs.com Mon Jan 3 07:36:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7962A3A69C8 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:36:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.365 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q7LColTYTSeD for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A556B28B23E for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p03FcBtp017647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:38:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (Knoppix-135185238233.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.233]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p03FcBiW012154 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:38:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D21EDEF.9090801@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:40:31 -0600 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 Subject: [cuss] Final minutes for Virtual-II X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:36:06 -0000 Folks: The draft minutes for Virtual-II wee posted on Dec-22-2010 (please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html) If you have not gone through them, please do so. I will send these as the official minutes to the IETF by tomorrow close of business (US time). If you have any changes to the minutes, please let me and Enrico know by tomorrow. Thank you, Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs From vkg@bell-labs.com Mon Jan 3 07:51:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AE83A69D7 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:51:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id clnfBte1cItg for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBBD3A69B5 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:51:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p03FrXO2027388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:53:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (Knoppix-135185238233.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.233]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p03FrWlq028130 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:53:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:55:52 -0600 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:51:31 -0000 Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order to move other chartered work ahead. There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field approach. So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the mechanism, specifically: Should the working group move ahead with the header field approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- to-User Call Control information in SIP? Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you in advance. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs From Leon.Portman@nice.com Mon Jan 3 08:17:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6833F3A69F8 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:17:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3qy6quS20gA for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailil.nice.com (tlvexc07.nice.com [192.114.148.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE8B3A6991 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from TLVMBX01.nice.com ([192.168.253.242]) by tlvcas01.nice.com ([192.168.253.111]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:19:11 +0200 From: Leon Portman To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:19:10 +0200 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXmkkgT70mOhGRY2eOPpk3myroAAA3xjw Message-ID: <07465C1D981ABC41A344374066AE1A2C389EB6DA98@TLVMBX01.nice.com> References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US, he-IL Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, he-IL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:17:07 -0000 New header field Leon -----Original Message----- From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vij= ay K. Gurbani Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 5:56 PM To: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order to move other chartered work ahead. There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field approach. So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the mechanism, specifically: Should the working group move ahead with the header field approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- to-User Call Control information in SIP? Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you in advance. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com Tue Jan 4 02:32:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990DF3A6B70 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:32:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ccCFO13mC7qv for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FCF3A6B5A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so6672908gxk.31 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 02:34:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Lr/jjY7VKXizTliEkmX+jxw0NQhVpsB2g29SKJ5MdRY=; b=qjwgWRxtOj52ELdpU6cu6ErCHVW36t2+mXNom9H5805n8/04rDtGVWBEhj2XUmI6AM tkYBCPW2NY1IdAXP6f6Lmo8ICMBRcPZpbLQBjDtfjKPvVf6rKRkQpERfmWhrUD24fr8S GHNkWn0PCAWbMUy4U2hLve6GxdNDZ8hu7LlTE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Gp7i4PugUMY2d2C51Q4Qn5hH7cZSLap67p0zkLbVxe4TABsX5ppaB6LJeeVSetAi/j DCPfXdvGay27k7Vukbj2MKLT8LZx3QjWvLdFFl6Xy2pbDYm73XUnfcP81t4ddFlqB/XB KtfKj50pdB2mYgCgID48NaidP02ARSenZF8nE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.53.14 with SMTP id b14mr17303582yba.59.1294137292513; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 02:34:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.151.153.16 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:34:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:34:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: Laura Liess To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:32:47 -0000 New Header Field approach. Laura 2011/1/3 Vijay K. Gurbani : > Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to > converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order > to move other chartered work ahead. > > There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and > new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls > and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. > > During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes > available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and > there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header > field mechanism. =A0In addition, individual folks have expressed > an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field > approach. > > So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the > mechanism, specifically: > > =A0 Should the working group move ahead with the header field > =A0 approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- > =A0 to-User Call Control information in SIP? > > Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by > Wednesday, January-12-2011. =A0Please do send a mail to the list, > even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". > > Thank you in advance. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html > > Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco > IETF CUSS WG co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > From frederique.forestier@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Jan 4 02:41:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E607A3A6B70 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:41:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56GEQvpvtjVr for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60ED3A6B5A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A36348B800E; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:44:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7838B800D; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:44:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:43:09 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:43:08 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXnfmWJV7eJPJTaqDyPc2fraQBQAnUpOQ References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2011 10:43:09.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D915A80:01CBABFC] Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:41:12 -0000 Hello all and happy new year, New header=20 Regards Fr=E9d=E9rique=20 -----Message d'origine----- De : cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de = Vijay K. Gurbani Envoy=E9 : lundi 3 janvier 2011 16:56 =C0 : cuss@ietf.org Objet : [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to converge = to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order to move other = chartered work ahead. There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and new = header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls and = in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes = available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and there were no = objections voiced to moving forward using the header field mechanism. = In addition, individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG = mailing list to choose the header field approach. So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the = mechanism, specifically: Should the working group move ahead with the header field approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- to-User Call Control information in SIP? Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by Wednesday, = January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, even if your = comment a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you in advance. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From R.Jesske@telekom.de Tue Jan 4 03:11:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FAC3A6B5A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:11:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yvERHT4iWuLk for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50473A69F5 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from he110890.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.131]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Jan 2011 12:13:29 +0100 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.174]) by he110890 ([10.134.92.131]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:13:28 +0100 From: To: , Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:13:28 +0100 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXntudS/JKyijTPqVbOQH90HMfwAodoMA Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D85A55866@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:11:27 -0000 "yes" for Header approach. Best Regards Roland > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] Im > Auftrag von Vijay K. Gurbani > Gesendet: Montag, 3. Januar 2011 16:56 > An: cuss@ietf.org > Betreff: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism > > Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to > converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order > to move other chartered work ahead. > > There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and > new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls > and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. > > During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes > available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and > there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header > field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed > an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field > approach. > > So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the > mechanism, specifically: > > Should the working group move ahead with the header field > approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- > to-User Call Control information in SIP? > > Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by > Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, > even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". > > Thank you in advance. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html > > Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco > IETF CUSS WG co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Tue Jan 4 03:43:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF463A69B7 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:43:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id roxM6K0eOD+O for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1E53A69D1 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:43:39 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-57-4d23086983b6 Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 90.32.23694.968032D4; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:45:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.237]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:45:45 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:45:43 +0100 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXmXsfCeZViWNSnyEGW/Fp0YDjQAphWjQ Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585048F8BD9@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:43:42 -0000 Header field. Regards, Christer=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani > Sent: 3. tammikuuta 2011 17:56 > To: cuss@ietf.org > Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism >=20 > Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need=20 > to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in=20 > order to move other chartered work ahead. >=20 > There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter=20 > and new header field. We have discussed these options in two=20 > interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field=20 > approach. >=20 > During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010=20 > (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the=20 > mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving=20 > forward using the header field mechanism. In addition,=20 > individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing=20 > list to choose the header field approach. >=20 > So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on=20 > the mechanism, specifically: >=20 > Should the working group move ahead with the header field > approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- > to-User Call Control information in SIP? >=20 > Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by=20 > Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the=20 > list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". >=20 > Thank you in advance. >=20 > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html >=20 > Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco > IETF CUSS WG co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > = From jbyron@cisco.com Tue Jan 4 04:17:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F51D3A6A29 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:17:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gWGaCE8haV4 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6F33A69B7 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:17:04 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjkGAIqeIk2tJV2d/2dsb2JhbACWGo4dc6FSmTuFSgSEaIlC X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,272,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="199645389" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2011 12:19:11 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p04CJBpk001573 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:19:11 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:19:11 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:18:53 -0600 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C03C9946B@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: Acur+w2YPrXCzJXuTjq6zT64W45yUwADmIWw References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> From: "Janet Byron (jbyron)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2011 12:19:11.0210 (UTC) FILETIME=[97D394A0:01CBAC09] Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:17:06 -0000 Yes, header field. Janet 2011/1/3 Vijay K. Gurbani : > Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to > converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order > to move other chartered work ahead. > > There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and > new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls > and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. > > During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes > available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and > there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header > field mechanism. =A0In addition, individual folks have expressed > an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field > approach. > > So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the > mechanism, specifically: > > =A0 Should the working group move ahead with the header field > =A0 approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- > =A0 to-User Call Control information in SIP? > > Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by > Wednesday, January-12-2011. =A0Please do send a mail to the list, > even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". > > Thank you in advance. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html > > Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco > IETF CUSS WG co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From frwillia@cisco.com Tue Jan 4 06:16:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903303A6BD6 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:16:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6syqR1LUD-DF for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:16:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB613A6BAF for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:16:21 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALq6Ik2tJV2d/2dsb2JhbACkOHOhT5kxhUoEhGiJQg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,272,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="199691091" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2011 14:18:28 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p04EIRSo026456; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:18:27 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-104.cisco.com ([72.163.62.146]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:18:27 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:18:26 -0600 Message-ID: <8CF3F00D0572F8479EFCD0783BE11EB10308D21C@XMB-RCD-104.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism thread-index: AcurXm7PeirA9TTvS1y2ycBUyXXQPAAu5kcg References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> From: "Frank Williams (frwillia)" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2011 14:18:27.0444 (UTC) FILETIME=[41463B40:01CBAC1A] Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:16:22 -0000 The new header field approach is the preferred mechanism. Regards, Frank Williams -----Original Message----- From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:56 AM To: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order to move other chartered work ahead. There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field approach. So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the mechanism, specifically: Should the working group move ahead with the header field approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- to-User Call Control information in SIP? Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you in advance. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From James.Rafferty@dialogic.com Tue Jan 4 06:42:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550CA3A6AD9 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:42:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rDiHJYOsQj5d for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.dialogic.com (outbound.dialogic.com [65.220.90.252]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F2E3A6A04 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from MBX.dialogic.com ([fe80::d09:39e:8fa1:c2a3]) by pysxht01.dialogic.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:44:56 -0500 From: James Rafferty To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:44:55 -0500 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXmZTjSIQgPYWQ1yeSJb0HZtxAQAv3baw Message-ID: <54633A5E61DC84429CB9FE3D9143C72133A17F@MBX.dialogic.com> References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:42:50 -0000 New Header Field. =20 James James Rafferty=20 Product Line Director, Integrated Media Gateways=20 Dialogic, Inc.=A0=20 -----Original Message----- From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vij= ay K. Gurbani Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:56 AM To: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order to move other chartered work ahead. There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field approach. So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the mechanism, specifically: Should the working group move ahead with the header field approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- to-User Call Control information in SIP? Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you in advance. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From frederique.forestier@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Jan 4 06:52:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA563A6C53 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:52:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k1JXpUcb0eYD for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80853A69ED for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E9E88B800A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:55:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3C88B8007 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:55:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:54:53 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:54:51 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [cuss] Final minutes for Virtual-II Thread-Index: AcurXFDSQVZM0CywRhyG/9wFNcpVwAAmZCvAAAjyfbAAAU274A== References: <4D21EDEF.9090801@bell-labs.com> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2011 14:54:53.0448 (UTC) FILETIME=[583BF880:01CBAC1F] Subject: Re: [cuss] Final minutes for Virtual-II X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:52:47 -0000 =20 Hello all and happy new year ! I have a comment concerning slide 5 as indicated during our vitual = meeting. Please clarify the fact that requirements 13 and 14 do not mean or do = not imply that mechanisms related to data integrity need to be defined = in SIP specifically for CUSS.=20 Regards Fr=E9d=E9rique=20 =20 -----Message d'origine----- De : cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de = Vijay K. Gurbani Envoy=E9 : lundi 3 janvier 2011 16:41 =C0 : = cuss@ietf.org Objet : [cuss] Final minutes for Virtual-II Folks: The draft minutes for Virtual-II wee posted on Dec-22-2010 = (please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html) If you have not gone through them, please do so. I will send these as the official minutes to the IETF by tomorrow close = of business (US time). If you have any changes to the minutes, please = let me and Enrico know by tomorrow. Thank you, Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Jan 4 07:52:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88C83A6CB7 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:52:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.586, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X1nC1Gv8enh0 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:52:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1FB3A6CB5 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p04FssjW014756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:54:59 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:54:54 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: "Gurbani, Vijay K (Vijay)" , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:54:53 +0100 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXm3+c7h031c1TVmE8xU785uFMQAyNjHg Message-ID: References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13 Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:52:55 -0000 I favour the header field approach. I believe with the body approach, we would still need considerable work in = the header part to indicate what the body relates to (when multiple UUI is = provided as a result of redirection), and putting the data in the body is j= ust an added complication. For the URI solution, I fail to see how the UUI relates to a specific URI. = Is it an attribute of the sending URI or the receiving URI for example? regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:56 PM > To: cuss@ietf.org > Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism >=20 > Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need=20 > to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in=20 > order to move other chartered work ahead. >=20 > There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter=20 > and new header field. We have discussed these options in two=20 > interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field=20 > approach. >=20 > During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010=20 > (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the=20 > mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving=20 > forward using the header field mechanism. In addition,=20 > individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing=20 > list to choose the header field approach. >=20 > So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on=20 > the mechanism, specifically: >=20 > Should the working group move ahead with the header field > approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- > to-User Call Control information in SIP? >=20 > Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by=20 > Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the=20 > list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". >=20 > Thank you in advance. >=20 > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html >=20 > Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco > IETF CUSS WG co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > = From alan.b.johnston@gmail.com Wed Jan 5 12:43:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738643A6CF0 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:43:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 447wb5jY6blt for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:43:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B093A6CEC for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so15736481bwz.31 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:45:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SXF1ofIybT+RHhod+WQnhYAFUg71S+rCHZC1HgYpKQk=; b=Lopky0ap0qNqSzB+J+Lo/7lXevSjj2D2WysGOKn1mUrvv+r4NZyI0Gp+OWdOdW3OZl 5iu4TLSHn73uVEi2+4FCm/3r1SAQVcqclTVDnq4MwX6gyQZtUcnQXEbzO5DyV0ZXZ452 TGgYhJv6f0kOiVoCPZn5SA4dxt3JnDWlqRZxs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=FtfZ96NfmDWNFXS4HzMiFA5LgjZ844I7FUgTeMH7Tje18U5S7fneEs/SlCwfjESbde AJUr+hazRVlGGKTSarCIz2PcFhjk2W8UzRAgiUPn/VLPdMEJPtECe91n5tCbJt63LLiY 8QbE0XZnz09exdAdL/HEPO2j1S1br3vIzO8Lk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.24.9 with SMTP id t9mr7681535bkb.183.1294260336725; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.232.15 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:45:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:45:36 -0600 Message-ID: From: Alan Johnston To: "cuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:43:33 -0000 I think we should move forward with the header field mechanism. - Alan - On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:54 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > I favour the header field approach. > > I believe with the body approach, we would still need considerable work i= n the header part to indicate what the body relates to (when multiple UUI i= s provided as a result of redirection), and putting the data in the body is= just an added complication. > > For the URI solution, I fail to see how the UUI relates to a specific URI= . Is it an attribute of the sending URI or the receiving URI for example? > > regards > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:56 PM >> To: cuss@ietf.org >> Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism >> >> Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need >> to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in >> order to move other chartered work ahead. >> >> There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter >> and new header field. We have discussed these options in two >> interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field >> approach. >> >> During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 >> (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the >> mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving >> forward using the header field mechanism. =A0In addition, >> individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing >> list to choose the header field approach. >> >> So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on >> the mechanism, specifically: >> >> =A0 =A0 Should the working group move ahead with the header field >> =A0 =A0 approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- >> =A0 =A0 to-User Call Control information in SIP? >> >> Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by >> Wednesday, January-12-2011. =A0Please do send a mail to the >> list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 >> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html >> >> Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco >> IETF CUSS WG co-chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> cuss mailing list >> cuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss >> > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > From shida@agnada.com Thu Jan 6 06:19:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BB33A6F16 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:19:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hc0W3QtPdGnT for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway04.websitewelcome.com (gateway04.websitewelcome.com [69.93.243.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B21EB3A6E1E for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2044 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2011 14:21:40 -0000 Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (69.56.174.130) by gateway04.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 6 Jan 2011 14:21:40 -0000 Received: from [117.102.104.130] (port=50686 helo=[10.5.72.205]) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Paqio-0002qy-FO; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:21:47 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Shida Schubert In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:21:45 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3A3DB9E2-F267-4924-AE3A-3234FA711E73@agnada.com> References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> To: Alan Johnston X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - agnada.com Cc: "cuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:19:43 -0000 I favor the header approach as well.=20 Regards Shida On Jan 6, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Alan Johnston wrote: > I think we should move forward with the header field mechanism. >=20 > - Alan - >=20 > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:54 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > wrote: >> I favour the header field approach. >>=20 >> I believe with the body approach, we would still need considerable = work in the header part to indicate what the body relates to (when = multiple UUI is provided as a result of redirection), and putting the = data in the body is just an added complication. >>=20 >> For the URI solution, I fail to see how the UUI relates to a specific = URI. Is it an attribute of the sending URI or the receiving URI for = example? >>=20 >> regards >>=20 >> Keith >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani >>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:56 PM >>> To: cuss@ietf.org >>> Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism >>>=20 >>> Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need >>> to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in >>> order to move other chartered work ahead. >>>=20 >>> There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter >>> and new header field. We have discussed these options in two >>> interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field >>> approach. >>>=20 >>> During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 >>> (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the >>> mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving >>> forward using the header field mechanism. In addition, >>> individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing >>> list to choose the header field approach. >>>=20 >>> So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on >>> the mechanism, specifically: >>>=20 >>> Should the working group move ahead with the header field >>> approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- >>> to-User Call Control information in SIP? >>>=20 >>> Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by >>> Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the >>> list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". >>>=20 >>> Thank you in advance. >>>=20 >>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 >>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html >>>=20 >>> Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco >>> IETF CUSS WG co-chairs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cuss mailing list >>> cuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss >>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> cuss mailing list >> cuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com Mon Jan 10 08:47:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E4C3A6B02 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:47:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nOz8Piap8LTy for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms04.m0019.fra.mmp.de.bt.com (m0019.fra.mmp.de.bt.com [62.180.227.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEC63A67FA for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from senmx11-mx ([62.134.46.9] [62.134.46.9]) by ms04.m0020.fra.mmp.de.bt.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-2953187; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:49:27 +0100 Received: from MCHP064A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.63]) by senmx11-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 576D61EB82B4; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:49:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP064A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.63]) with mapi; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:49:27 +0100 From: "Elwell, John" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:49:25 +0100 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXmYgiI0WdJZeQSqFSqILIpIh0AFh+R1A Message-ID: References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:47:18 -0000 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani > Sent: 03 January 2011 15:56 > To: cuss@ietf.org > Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism >=20 > Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to > converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order > to move other chartered work ahead. >=20 > There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and > new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls > and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. >=20 > During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes > available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and > there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header > field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed > an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field > approach. >=20 > So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the > mechanism, specifically: >=20 > Should the working group move ahead with the header field > approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- > to-User Call Control information in SIP? [JRE] Yes John >=20 > Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by > Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, > even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". >=20 > Thank you in advance. >=20 > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html >=20 > Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco > IETF CUSS WG co-chairs > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > = From christian.1.schmidt@nsn.com Tue Jan 11 00:51:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF1E3A6A1C for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:51:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-rGfAL6R0hg for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFEC3A63EB for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p0B8rnMm019208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:53:49 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p0B8rkN0012611; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:53:48 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.24]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:53:44 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:53:41 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Thread-Index: AcurXmco1GuQZ9SaQIGEtOt8+v8q9AGDoh9w References: <4D21F188.4090802@bell-labs.com> From: "Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Vijay K. Gurbani" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2011 08:53:44.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D77D5A0:01CBB16D] Subject: Re: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:51:41 -0000 Pro new header field approach Christian -----Original Message----- From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Vijay K. Gurbani Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 4:56 PM To: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] Consensus call: Choosing a mechanism Folks: One output of the Virtual-II meeting was that we need to converge to a specific mechanism for transporting UUI in order to move other chartered work ahead. There are three mechanisms listed in [1]: body, URI parameter and new header field. We have discussed these options in two interim calls and in Beijing. [1] favors the new header field approach. During the CUSS Virtual-II meeting held on Dec-21-2010 (minutes available at [2]), we further discussed the mechanisms and there were no objections voiced to moving forward using the header field mechanism. In addition, individual folks have expressed an opinion on the WG mailing list to choose the header field approach. So, the chairs would like to formally call for consensus on the mechanism, specifically: Should the working group move ahead with the header field approach as the specific mechanism for transporting User- to-User Call Control information in SIP? Please send comments on this consensus call to the list by Wednesday, January-12-2011. Please do send a mail to the list, even if your comment a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you in advance. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui-01 [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00132.html Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco IETF CUSS WG co-chairs _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss From vkg@bell-labs.com Fri Jan 14 08:19:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209213A6BB8 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:19:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zer9sO-fTSUO for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:19:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1237E3A6BA3 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p0EGLujo000542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:21:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (Knoppix-135185238233.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.233]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p0EGLudM021054 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:21:56 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D3078B4.2060200@bell-labs.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:24:20 -0600 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: [cuss] End of consensus call: Choosing a mechanism X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:19:32 -0000 Folks: Pursuant to the discussions on the topic during the Beijing meeting [1], the second virtual CUSS meeting [2], the consensus call on the mailing list [3] and the resulting expression in favour of the header approach, and the fact that draft-johnston-cuss-sip-uui is the only candidate for meeting the charter milestone on a mechanism, it seems reasonable to adopt it as an official working group item. Future updates of the document will extend and refine the header-based approach while text about alternate approaches will be moved to a different section (or an appendix). Enrico and I will like to give until Wednesday, Jan 19, 2011 for anyone to express any residual concerns on moving ahead with the header based approach. After that, we will request Alan to submit the draft as a working group document. [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/cuss.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00138.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00139.html Thank you, Vijay K. Gurbani and Enrico Marocco