From vkg@bell-labs.com Mon Aug 8 13:34:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A032D5E801B for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:34:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9-XXd85S94q for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C8F5E8018 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p78KYZow011596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:34:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p78KYYwe021585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:34:35 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p78KYYnO008197 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:34:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4E4048CA.3010809@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:36:26 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 Subject: [cuss] Draft minutes from IETF-81 X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Aug 2011 20:34:12 -0000 Folks: The draft minutes from IETF-81 are now available at the following URL: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/cuss.html Please eyeball these and let me and Enrico know of any changes. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From vkg@bell-labs.com Mon Aug 8 13:53:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBE521F8ABE for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJ5JNqqY45mj for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373E921F8A7E for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p78KsCCZ004642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:54:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p78KsCnk003541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:54:12 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p78KsCSS024735; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:54:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4E404D63.1090909@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:56:03 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Johnston Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12 Cc: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] Revised version of problem statement and requirements draft X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Aug 2011 20:53:48 -0000 Alan: As outlined in the (draft) minutes [1] from IETF-81, we need to move ahead on the problem statement and requirements draft. Enrico and I concur that doing a second round of WGLC on a minor revision that incorporates the issues discussed on the mailing list and captured during IETF-81 seems appropriate. Can you please get a revised version out by next Monday (Aug-15), which we can subsequently use for a second WGLC? Please advise. [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/cuss.html Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From alan.b.johnston@gmail.com Mon Aug 8 14:41:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D0421F8BDE for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:41:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r1VyP3eRmsFl for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD6921F8BCD for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1779847gwb.31 for ; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yyBrMUJ3/Ftj9wROKYdH7U0wgak+qJQ/3pT+nOYAttI=; b=ks106f19eVqfwdMb2/dSBuJ2Oeka5hDDcCOqugir2DAzUGN48Jl7Iv2xUGOBnO+VXj pdgS8ax/Nq2XcvnA6lY4DnYcBwHe6+0JmntqO3w1RqoWSDNyFo8JsF+16KiaQVP2+ThM wFkhlZW+txwKAHjyjFiTA4BqGiatBEasnUBNo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.1.19 with SMTP id 19mr1185556yba.37.1312839728082; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.143.11 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E404D63.1090909@bell-labs.com> References: <4E404D63.1090909@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 16:42:08 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alan Johnston To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [cuss] Revised version of problem statement and requirements draft X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 08 Aug 2011 21:41:42 -0000 Vijay, I can to this. - Alan - On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Alan: As outlined in the (draft) minutes [1] from IETF-81, > we need to move ahead on the problem statement and requirements > draft. > > Enrico and I concur that doing a second round of WGLC on a minor > revision that incorporates the issues discussed on the mailing list > and captured during IETF-81 seems appropriate. > > Can you please get a revised version out by next Monday (Aug-15), > which we can subsequently use for a second WGLC? =A0Please advise. > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/cuss.html > > Thanks, > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent > 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) > Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com > Web: =A0 http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Aug 11 11:45:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F5621F8C58; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7JVkA4ZWqBdu; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7258D21F8BB5; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.57 Message-ID: <20110811184524.23743.97545.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:45:24 -0700 Cc: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04.txt X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 11 Aug 2011 18:45:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Problem Statement and Requirements for Transporting User= to User Call Control Information in SIP Author(s) : Alan Johnston Laura Liess Filename : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2011-08-11 This document introduces the transport of call control related User to User Information (UUI) using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), and develops several requirements for a new SIP mechanism. Some SIP sessions are established by or related to a non-SIP application. This application may have information that needs to be transported between the SIP User Agents during session establishment. In addition to interworking with the ISDN UUI Service, this extension will also be used for native SIP endpoints requiring application UUI. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04.txt From alan.b.johnston@gmail.com Thu Aug 11 11:51:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E8A21F8C38 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:51:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Y6RkL5tqx8i for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B468A21F8C2F for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yie12 with SMTP id 12so1793330yie.31 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GKERsyum7VhDH5tbuqESdCNoiCt05SFXXG5/992PH0U=; b=B3OpG5ReJEX3EYz+r+6gqug9sitvPJ4estWh9SgXbcUlBrD8n/2ZW7JC8QOfv53oFd TmcMzcjRE7WCcFWlkYRxQGd4A1aESMRdFrKfhHc3/E2qlsgmKxAhwrKqgWxTN7zzbsQ4 E/sPJ4tDYC1E0lrvN7FQlJYNd4ikHvUQXbI6A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.170.4 with SMTP id s4mr1017807ybe.379.1313088742535; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.140.4 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:52:22 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alan Johnston To: cuss@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [cuss] Requirements Issue Discussion from IETF-81 X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 11 Aug 2011 18:51:48 -0000 All, I have posted a new version of the requirements draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04. There were two issues that were discussed in the meeting at IETF-81 that I wanted to confirm on the list. The first issue was carrying UUI in SIP failure responses (4xx/5xx/6xx). The consensus of the room in Quebec was that there was no use case for this and no requirement. The other issue was whether we had a requirement to tag UUI as DSS1 or QSIG or ISUP. The consensus of the room in Quebec was that all UUI in the PSTN is actually ISDN, and it is transported transparently in other protocols. As such, we have no requirement for this. If anyone disagrees with any of these issues they should post to the list immediately. - Alan - From vkg@bell-labs.com Mon Aug 15 13:11:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E40611E80CA for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yH+H+6ffRBm for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B063021F8D33 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p7FKC2YV002254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:12:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p7FKC1Ex002778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:12:02 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p7FKBxI6028574 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:12:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4E497E04.5020102@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:13:56 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cuss@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Subject: Re: [cuss] Requirements Issue Discussion from IETF-81 X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 15 Aug 2011 20:11:35 -0000 Folks: If anyone has feedback related to what Alan writes below, please post it as soon as possible. I will like to request Alan to release a new version no later than Wednesday the latest to accommodate any feedback. If we are to keep our schedule of sending the requirement draft to IESG by the end of this month, we need to meet these deadlines. Thank you. On 08/11/2011 01:52 PM, Alan Johnston wrote: > All, > > I have posted a new version of the requirements draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04. > > There were two issues that were discussed in the meeting at IETF-81 > that I wanted to confirm on the list. > > The first issue was carrying UUI in SIP failure responses > (4xx/5xx/6xx). The consensus of the room in Quebec was that there was > no use case for this and no requirement. > > The other issue was whether we had a requirement to tag UUI as DSS1 or > QSIG or ISUP. The consensus of the room in Quebec was that all UUI in > the PSTN is actually ISDN, and it is transported transparently in > other protocols. As such, we have no requirement for this. > > If anyone disagrees with any of these issues they should post to the > list immediately. > > - Alan - > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From vkg@bell-labs.com Tue Aug 16 15:16:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C16521F8A80 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:16:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57UWbESlDIxg for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0401521F8A66 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p7GMHK6o007355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:17:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p7GMHJvM021308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:17:20 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p7GMHJpA024675 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:17:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4E4AECE1.9060704@bell-labs.com> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:19:13 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 Subject: [cuss] Second round of WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 16 Aug 2011 22:16:33 -0000 Folks: Enrico and I will like to issue a second round of WGLC for the CUSS Problem Statement and Requirements draft as follows: Draft: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04.txt WGLC period: August 16, 2011 - August 30, 2011 The authors believe that they have addressed the open issues discussed at IETF-81 (Quebec City). Please go through the latest version of the draft [1] and indicate any comments on the list by Aug-30-2011. [1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04.txt Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it Tue Aug 23 08:28:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FAA21F8B7F for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:28:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.687 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sWNCFQakOooM for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A83C21F8B78 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFHUB701BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.111) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:29:51 +0200 Received: from MacLab.local (163.162.180.246) by smtp.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:29:50 +0200 Message-ID: <4E53C72D.3040705@telecomitalia.it> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:28:45 +0200 From: Enrico Marocco User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "cuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050608040100090806070904" Subject: [cuss] Virtual interim meeting in September X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Aug 2011 15:28:46 -0000 --------------ms050608040100090806070904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, as agreed during IETF 81, the cuss WG will have a virtual interim meeting in September to consolidate the mechanism and ISDN usage drafts. The candidate dates are Sept 19-23; early next week we'll file a request for a 2 hour WebEx slot according to your preference you can express using the Doodle poll available at: http://www.doodle.com/d562rxpvbm9dbxta Enrico and Vijay --------------ms050608040100090806070904 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIM7jCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICAR4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDE1NVoXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVowgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMcJg8zOLdgasSmkLhOr lr6KMoOMpohBllVHrdRvEg/q6r8jR+EK75xCGhR8ToREoqe7zM9/UnC6TS2y9UKTpT1v7RSM zR0t6ndl0TWBuUr/UXBhPk+Kmy7bI4yW4urC+y7P3/1/X7U8ocb8VpH/Clt+4iq7nirMcNh6 qJR+xjOhV+VHzQMALuGYn5KZmc1NbJQYclsGkDxDz2UbFqE2+6vIZoL+jb9x4Pa5gNf1TwSD kOkikZB1xtB4ZqtXThaABSONdfmv/Z1pua3FYxnCFmdr/+N2JLKutIxMYqQOJebr/f/h5t95 m4JgrM3Y/w7YX9d7YAL9jvN4SydHsU6n65cCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBRTcu2SnODaywFcfH6WNU7y1LhRgjAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAAqD CH14qywGXLhjjF6uHLkjd02hcdh9hrw+VUsv+q1eeQWB21jWj3kJ96AUlPCoEGZ/ynJNScWy 6QMVQjbbMXltUfO4n4bGGdKo3awPWp61tjAFgraLJgDk+DsSvUD6EowjMTNx25GQgyYJ5RPI zKKR9tQW8gGK+2+RHxkUCTbYFnL6kl8Ch507rUdPPipJ9CgJFws3kDS3gOS5WFMxcjO5DwKf KSETEPrHh7p5shuuNktvsv6hxHTLhiMKX893gxdT3XLS9OKmCv87vkINQcNEcIIoFWbP9HOR z9v3vQwR4e3ksLc2JZOAFK+ssS5XMEoznzpihEP0PLc4dCBYjbvSD7kxgDwZ+Aj8Q9PkbvE9 sIPP7ON0fz095HdThKjiVJe6vofq+n6b1NBc8XdrQvBmunwxD5nvtTW4vtN6VY7mUCmxsCie uoBJ9OlqmsVWQvifIYf40dJPZkk9YgGTzWLpXDSfLSplbY2LL9C9U0ptvjcDjefLTvqSFc7t w1sEhF0n/qpA2r0GpvkLRDmcSwVyPvmjFBGqUp/pNy8ZuPGQmHwFi2/14+xeSUDG2bwnsYJQ G2EdJCB6luQ57GEnTA/yKZSTKI8dDQa8Sd3zfXb19mOgSF0bBdXbuKhEpuP9wirslFe6fQ1t 5j5R0xi72MZ8ikMu1RQZKCyDbMwazlHiMIIGsjCCBZqgAwIBAgIDAZXQMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB BQUAMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMi U2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20g Q2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwHhcNMTAwOTAyMjE0NjQ5 WhcNMTEwOTA0MDczNDM2WjCBnTEgMB4GA1UEDRMXMjUxNDUwLTVBOWo3QUhXTXgzNkVHa2Qx HjAcBgNVBAoTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEpMCcGA1UEAxMgU3RhcnRDb20gRnJl ZSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxLjAsBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWH2Vucmljby5tYXJvY2NvQHRl bGVjb21pdGFsaWEuaXQwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCVq5Ial9/2 azyFbgXY2+yMbEwHjhOWlXcwa7sdnRZ6BUXjusppAmshM1SPz+IZYfLdqancntuhkG/YKR4T Mg0SzWz3bDtCQjga0FSBQ5v2Up8kT/Q0F4/hkYrsTaKfL+WA2cjQtn8+K0fD3t/1tcuTuIHw fesN6w1VDn4HhFj3WGSXok9Zxk7609/Z4ZBqr3trmQ5Dl6pwb8pO1kE/ggH7qCx537ybIByS dxzcPNzbryGJiCfy4iXaws0xsl4xEQXDJFixLjgJm+AOTXb37AAgwKq+v9t3qIH6AHAbPBO6 I/qpoQ/zYMs1s9CoKkNDa9DsJlgyZdPH/vyFvCi/dDJ7AgMBAAGjggMIMIIDBDAJBgNVHRME AjAAMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0O BBYEFCTMmq/In1ufC0+wdpHdBvezAYWcMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFFNy7ZKc4NrLAVx8fpY1TvLU uFGCMCoGA1UdEQQjMCGBH2Vucmljby5tYXJvY2NvQHRlbGVjb21pdGFsaWEuaXQwggFCBgNV HSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAuBggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEFBQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFy dHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYBBQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20g THRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNlZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1p dGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGlj eSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNV HR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1MS1jcmwuY3JsMCug KaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1MS1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcB AQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNz MS9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRz L3N1Yi5jbGFzczEuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIEHDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0 c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADWaaCjv4EfYGz4rrds8wLUpSPTi1tnO3hIm /Hg0SHqDRWRv3AG/OjUKYj+UKKAzhhEoYYrYCxhQfO3uEAC4Mez+DWDsBymKHsRkpf/0efoh mDe60HN81V6jB7hSB+FHaJ5QCBhJ/yasltL7HMl92dpRHYlnKXoXAiIoZUY54eYh09Gyk8su xgaiAwWtn4NnTqnQTjYOOly+WOZ/M6AlmkTErzjliIyAJOIceWzByJs6iIvLXzqpdoZ1+BzE TvoyaVidF13Xc8opUGSqYTyaVKwumrA5eUOZrLzdunkT8JuWgAx81syHYjSeD4ae+EoMFRJ8 gVm6vGPNETTSbFjGM38xggPQMIIDzAIBATCBlDCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUg Q2xpZW50IENBAgMBldAwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAhAwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEH ATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTEwODIzMTUyODQ1WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUOY17mh4K WokYyWJ4U5mw7rnJpIEwXwYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMVIwUDALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcN AwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMC AgEoMIGlBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgZcwgZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFy dENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5n MTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVu dCBDQQIDAZXQMIGnBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGBl6CBlDCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNV BAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRl IFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlh dGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgMBldAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAfJvVoCvTygelGi0ow3OsiQZw I4paj5VgqpfP0qMNOFcyScdEwrdrEUj9GxXBqPw15RI9aNSLq/i6YahRisKXYBSztx/8QTpk RYqyTuvwF9y4dGLkkwSnFiH7hMueQRe1g06NmW9CuledlNocz9+NEOlfuzjNVOYPcgi5CEia r4rA6mWmHXXJWxIBejhR54Daa6KO6XFNWetIyIojc2VMLzRc4J5HfCnkS9erm99BQk7xsBzL LtixiZ5sCt6HDKqwedqzeFX8AVZQ6yDRvlHZM7txlqy4yPeQqev6LtW47aULOtnbyYCqI1cy wje7mF8hbkwBt6EQE/6DfHtpE8ZvkQAAAAAAAA== --------------ms050608040100090806070904-- From vkg@bell-labs.com Tue Aug 23 12:25:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2F621F86B3 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:25:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dBe4sMbIBCYs for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BFD21F84F9 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p7NJQw6S007677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:26:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p7NJQwjn031903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:26:58 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p7NJQvmT012775 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:26:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4E53FF7E.3000503@bell-labs.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:29:02 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 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 135.245.2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 Subject: [cuss] Nomcom 2011-2012: Call for Nominations X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Aug 2011 19:25:51 -0000 From: NomCom Chair To: IETF Announcement list Subject: Nomcom 2011-2012: Call for Nominations Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ietf@ietf.org Hi All, The 2011-2012 Nominating committee is seeking nominations from now until October 2, 2011. The list of open positions can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/ Nominations may be made directly on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages by selecting the Nominate link at the top of the page. The URL for NomCom 2011-2012 pages is: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/ Nominations may also be made by email to nomcom11@ietf.org. If you do so, please include the word "Nominate" in the Subject and indicate in the email who is being nominated, their email address (to confirm acceptance of the nomination), and the position for which you are making the nomination. If you wish to nominate someone via email for more than one position, please use separate emails to do so. Self nomination is welcome. NomCom 2011-2012 will follow the policy for "Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees" described in RFC 5680. As stated in RFC 5680: "The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential". Willing Nominees for each position will be publicly listed. The public nominee list will be updated at least once a week and possibly more often as nominations are received. With the exception of publicly listing willing nominees, the confidentiality requirements of RFC 3777 remain in effect. All feedback and NomCom deliberations will remain confidential and not disclosed. Because the list of nominees this year is public, we will accept feedback on the nominees starting August 23, 2011. Per RFC 5680, we will accept feedback from the entire IETF community on all the nominees. If you wish to provide anonymous feedback, the chair or any of the members will be happy to handle this for you. The Nominating Committee chair can be reached at nomcom-chair@ietf.org and the entire nominating committee can be reached at nomcom11@ietf.org. The email addresses of individual NomCom members is also on the NomCom 2011-2012 pages. In addition to nominations, the Nominating Committee is actively seeking community input on the jobs that need to be filled. We have received the job descriptions from the IAB, IESG, and IAOC and they can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iab-requirements https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iesg-requirements https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2011/iaoc-requirements However, we also need the community's views and input on the jobs within each organization. If you have ideas on job responsibilities (more, less, different), please let us know. Please send suggestions and feedback to nomcom11@ietf.org. Thank you, Suresh Krishnan Chair, NomCom 2011-2012 nomcom-chair@ietf.org suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com From dworley@avaya.com Wed Aug 24 11:18:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A8F21F889A for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvH9JaBU6BeX for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF3B21F8880 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EADtAVU7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABCp353gUABAQEBAxIoTwIBCA0pEDIlAQEEARoTB6YQApxHhWpfBJhEi2w X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,276,1312171200"; d="scan'208";a="299689395" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2011 14:19:31 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.35]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2011 14:15:31 -0400 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.172]) by DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.35]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:19:30 -0400 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:17:49 -0400 Thread-Topic: [cuss] Second round of WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs Thread-Index: AcxcYka35sT5iH8XTY6TT1tPMegF8wGJ9rXu Message-ID: References: <4E4AECE1.9060704@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4E4AECE1.9060704@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] Second round of WGLC for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 24 Aug 2011 18:18:22 -0000 Here are my comments on draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-04. 2.2. Proxy Retargeting I am not sure I can tell what the point of this use case is. I *think* that the idea is that in this case the proxy is changing the request-URI, whereas in 2.1, it is silently assumed that the proxy is not changing the request-URI. (My practical experience is that proxies change request-URIs almost all the time, so the default case of a proxy simply forwarding based on the existing request-URI doesn't come naturally to mind.) But there are also unclarities in the wording. E.g,., "the terminating UA" vs. "a different termination UA", but only one terminating UA is shown. *If* I am right, this would be clearer as: In this scenario, the originator UA includes UUI in the INVITE sent through a proxy to the terminating UA. The proxy retargets the INVITE, changing its request-URI to a URI that addresses the termination UA. The UUI information is then received and processed by the terminating UA. This call flow is identical to Figure 1 except that the proxy retargets the request, i.e., changes the request-URI as directed by some unspecified process. The UUI in the INVITE needs to be passed unchanged through this proxy retargeting operation. Also, the use of "originator" vs. "originating" and "terminator" vs. "terminating" is not clear. My impression is that in telecomm usage, the latter terms are favored over the former terms; this document prefers "originator" and "terminator", but also uses "termination" and "terminating". 2.4. Referral I would be a bit clearer to say: [...] In some cases, this call flow is used in place of the redirection call flow: the Referrer immediately answers the call and then sends the REFER. This scenario is shown in Figure 3. REQ-1 Change "includes" to "include", since the subject of "include" is "responses": SIP messages covered by this include INVITE requests and end-to- end responses to the INVITE, which >>>include<<< 18x, 200, and 3xx responses. REQ-6 It reads better changing the "or"s to "and"s: REQ-6: The mechanism will support interworking with call control related DSS1 information elements, QSIG information elements, and ISUP parameters. REQ-8 The grammar of REQ-8 is not quite correct. Perhaps this is better: REQ-8: The mechanism will allow a UAC to require that a UAS understands the call control UUI mechanism in order to have a request routed to IT. [...] or perhaps the word "and" is omitted here: REQ-8: The mechanism will allow a UAC to require that a UAS understands the call control UUI mechanism >>>and<<< have a request routed based on this information. [...] REQ-11 REQ-11: The solution will provide a mechanism of transporting at least 128 octets of user data and a one octet protocol discriminator, i.e. 129 octets in total. I would make explicit that the UUI is a sequence of octets, because there is no other place where we state the data model we envision for UUI. Viz.: REQ-11: The UUI is a sequence of octets. The solution will provide a mechanism for transporting at least 128 octets of user data and a separate one-octet protocol discriminator, i.e. 129 octets in total. 4. Security Considerations The last sentence of the 1st paragraph does not (IMHO) clearly state what everyone knows that it means. Perhaps: [...] As such, is important for application users of SIP UUI to know the level of security used and deployed in their particular SIP environments, and not to assume that a standardized (but perhaps rarely deployed) security mechanism is in place. The following two paragraphs document 3 security approaches, despite stating that they contain two. Some revisions: There are >>>three<<< main security models that need to be addressed by the SIP UUI mechanism. One model treats the SIP layer as untrusted and requires end-to-end integrity protection and/or encryption. This model can be achieved by providing these security services at a layer above SIP. In this case, the application integrity protects and/or encrypts the UUI information before passing it to the SIP layer. This method has two advantages: it does not assume or rely on end-to-end security mechanisms in SIP (which have virtually no deployment), and allows the application which understands the contents of the UUI to apply a proper level of security. >>>A second approach<<< is for the application to pass the UUI without any protection to the SIP layer and require the SIP layer to provide this security, >>>e.g., through routing requests using sips: URIs<<<. This approach is possible in theory, although its practical use would be extremely limited. >>>The third model<<< utilizes a trust domain and relies on perimeter security at the SIP layer. This is the security model of the PSTN and ISDN where UUI is commonly used today. This approach uses hop- by-hop security mechanisms and relies on border elements for filtering and application of policy. This approach is used today in SIP UUI deployments. >>>Within this approach, there is a requirement that intermediary elements can detect and remove a UUI element based on policy, but there is no requirement that an intermediary element be able to read or interpret the UUI (as the UUI contents only have end-to-end significance).<<< Within these three models, it's not clear to me exactly what the security requirements (REQ-13, REQ-14, and REQ-15) mean. Does each requirement apply within the environment of each model? And seemingly the threat model changes between models: in model 1, the SIP intermediaries are untrusted; in model 2, the SIP intermediaries seem to be trusted, but the networks are not trusted; and in model 3, the "walled garden" network is entirely trusted. Dale