From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Dec 1 15:44:40 2012 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 A290E21F8CE1; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:44:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3V8d259l3TOw; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:44:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3105321F86B2; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:44:40 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.36 Message-ID: <20121201234440.4158.91490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:44:40 -0800 Cc: cuss@ietf.org Subject: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.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: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:44:40 -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 Working = Group of the IETF. Title : A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control I= nformation in SIP Author(s) : Alan Johnston James Rafferty Filename : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-12-01 Abstract: There is a class of applications which benefit from using SIP to exchange User to User Information (UUI) data during session establishment. This information, known as call control UUI data, is a small piece of data inserted by an application initiating the session, and utilized by an application accepting the session. The rules which apply for a specific application are defined by a UUI package. This UUI data is opaque to SIP and its function is unrelated to any basic SIP function. This document defines a new SIP header field, User-to-User, to transport UUI data, along with an extension mechanism. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Dec 3 00:36:36 2012 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 DE74621F88C8 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:36:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y8GPUljlCD42 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:36:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1CE21F88C2 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:36:35 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f936d0000018b3-a4-50bc6492cf6a Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 07.14.06323.2946CB05; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:36:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.165] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:36:33 +0100 Message-ID: <50BC6491.9080604@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:36:33 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cuss@ietf.org References: <20121201234440.4158.91490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121201234440.4158.91490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6klD0BBn3nTSxutL9gdmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxoMlv9gKvopUrNs8m62Bcb5AFyMnh4SAicSaW6tYIGwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAmcZJTYcvEhE4SzhlGi5ddn5i5GDg5eAW2Jy8/zQUwWARWJU4vEQHrZBCwktty6 DzZHVCBK4tDGg+wgNq+AoMTJmU/A4iJA9vS+I0wgtrCAncSfyadZQWwhAQeJZ+sXMIPYnAKO Ehf7/zJB3CMp8fb9K7A4s4CexJSrLYwQtrzE9rdzmCF6tSWWP2thmcAoOAvJullIWmYhaVnA yLyKkT03MTMnvdx8EyMw+A5u+W2wg3HTfbFDjNIcLErivHqq+/2FBNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pz UosPMTJxcEo1MNaLfrm9TkScpXqe/P5ksR2RhfOfel+75Wv6S45zY+P/D9zcbySPG5W73Gbd dl2T22Cq+Z5L19acOvnMwlzuuHKrRZLIx+oJb+MNpF4+/V5w2C5J0GJjT070zsK34qEMAQed nyWbL8/tLv5lKbfvIbP6NLk/xYdzd8mx3BdwNWubu3DnudvTNJVYijMSDbWYi4oTAUYFjqUM AgAA Subject: Re: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:36:37 -0000 Authors, thanks for addressing my comments. I still have a couple of quick questions. The new draft uses RFC Required as its IANA policy. I have not seen any discussions on the mailing list about this. Has the WG considered the Specification Required policy as well? Given that the draft gives guidelines on what is appropriate to register and what is not, having a policy that involves some type of technical review (e.g., by an expert) would seem a natural choice. What were the reasons considered when making this decision? I had a comment on the first sentence of Section 4.1 that does not seem to have been addressed. What is the meaning of "only" in this sentence? > The User-to-User (UUI) header field can be present in INVITE requests > and responses only and in BYE requests and responses. Thanks, Gonzalo On 02/12/2012 1:44 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in SIP > Author(s) : Alan Johnston > James Rafferty > Filename : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2012-12-01 > > Abstract: > There is a class of applications which benefit from using SIP to > exchange User to User Information (UUI) data during session > establishment. This information, known as call control UUI data, is > a small piece of data inserted by an application initiating the > session, and utilized by an application accepting the session. The > rules which apply for a specific application are defined by a UUI > package. This UUI data is opaque to SIP and its function is > unrelated to any basic SIP function. This document defines a new SIP > header field, User-to-User, to transport UUI data, along with an > extension mechanism. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss > > From pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu Mon Dec 3 07:46:26 2012 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 8BD8021F85B1 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:46:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.356 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bYombD5Pk3Fy for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:46:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739EA21F8441 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:46:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Wzqq1k0021uE5Es553mQlh; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:46:24 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X3mQ1k00X3ZTu2S3c3mQyE; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: <50BCC94F.1090204@alum.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:46:23 -0500 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cuss@ietf.org References: <20121201234440.4158.91490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50BC6491.9080604@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <50BC6491.9080604@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1354549584; bh=BmXzDeXNbCs4wmtrxYnUFLcznjR0Upd3PDbOFcaiGss=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=rdSiKHPZzLAvlL5mmUqXm5f3QD63+NbMj63O4hE2kM2W4psoUeT6zX6zEpSwUWoW5 zOVEsQk9CgWv+P6uC43xt3oReW1El9YTwf02aXaiCPdNeazYVA4EqBL5VRh3TRTa25 uX2x3hMkNppV+8Lhwd0AFQicEKoQhxguo3xYpT6tyJEu5+cgBwfG54Oh+bWcByBB7k f9IlT0KpnNNQ+DjUfWP4DUM/jnbV/C6HvmruUoBbwurm/AcqUwSGw7TEzPxzwRwI0c WVP50nE7Y27XZf0Evh7I/l6zS/90Gwyo4fmWjoqdLguV8pSjZ9Fii5iyo5ukOk2VeC TS5tVmJQ9oyYQ== Subject: Re: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:46:26 -0000 On 12/3/12 3:36 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors, > > thanks for addressing my comments. I still have a couple of quick questions. > > The new draft uses RFC Required as its IANA policy. I have not seen any > discussions on the mailing list about this. Has the WG considered the > Specification Required policy as well? Given that the draft gives > guidelines on what is appropriate to register and what is not, having a > policy that involves some type of technical review (e.g., by an expert) > would seem a natural choice. What were the reasons considered when > making this decision? Thanks for bringing this up. Others can report their recollection - I recall that this was discussed. It was (and still is) my opinion that the bar needs to be very low for defining these extensions, because they are likely to be custom to individual vendor applications or individual enterprise deployments. I'm not sure that even FCFS is a low enough bar. But I finally gave up arguing this point because most everyone seems to think that the only *real* usage with be with the legacy default. IIUC, the legacy usage of this has the format of uui data being deployment-specific without any mechanism for verifying that sender and receiver agree on what that format it. Thanks, Paul > I had a comment on the first sentence of Section 4.1 that does not seem > to have been addressed. What is the meaning of "only" in this sentence? > >> The User-to-User (UUI) header field can be present in INVITE requests >> and responses only and in BYE requests and responses. > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > > On 02/12/2012 1:44 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in SIP >> Author(s) : Alan Johnston >> James Rafferty >> Filename : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt >> Pages : 18 >> Date : 2012-12-01 >> >> Abstract: >> There is a class of applications which benefit from using SIP to >> exchange User to User Information (UUI) data during session >> establishment. This information, known as call control UUI data, is >> a small piece of data inserted by an application initiating the >> session, and utilized by an application accepting the session. The >> rules which apply for a specific application are defined by a UUI >> package. This UUI data is opaque to SIP and its function is >> unrelated to any basic SIP function. This document defines a new SIP >> header field, User-to-User, to transport UUI data, along with an >> extension mechanism. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 James.Rafferty@dialogic.com Fri Dec 28 07:15:08 2012 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 1C89121F866E for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:15:08 -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=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qG9UsxsFMcw for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.dialogic.com (outbound.dialogic.com [173.210.122.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3649421F86D5 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:15:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from MBX.dialogic.com ([fe80::bd56:b76c:8d2c:437b]) by pysxht02.dialogic.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:15:07 -0500 From: James Rafferty To: Gonzalo Camarillo , "cuss@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:15:05 -0500 Thread-Topic: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac3RMVIb6JvWUYQ9QnSQRg2LsUIuOQT2rBPA Message-ID: <54633A5E61DC84429CB9FE3D9143C721E6F513B0@MBX.dialogic.com> References: <20121201234440.4158.91490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50BC6491.9080604@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <50BC6491.9080604@ericsson.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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.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: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:15:08 -0000 Gonzalo,=20 Please see my comments below: =20 James -----Original Message----- From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gon= zalo Camarillo Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:37 AM To: cuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [cuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt Authors, thanks for addressing my comments. I still have a couple of quick questions= . The new draft uses RFC Required as its IANA policy. I have not seen any dis= cussions on the mailing list about this. Has the WG considered the Specific= ation Required policy as well? Given that the draft gives guidelines on wha= t is appropriate to register and what is not, having a policy that involves= some type of technical review (e.g., by an expert) would seem a natural ch= oice. What were the reasons considered when making this decision? JR - There was a brief exchange between Keith Drage and Alan Johnston on th= is topic around Sept. 19, 2011 on the CUSS list, but I didn't see any immed= iate further discussion. See the emails with Subject: Registration req= uirements for new parameter values in the User-to-User header field. Ther= e were several items to be clarified at that time around what kind of conte= nt needed to be specified for new UUI applications as a result of October l= ist discussions and an interim meeting. The result was additional IANA ve= rbiage being added within the -03 version of the document in Section 6.4 - = 6.5 stating that a Standards Track RFC was required for registering new va= lues for the content and encoding parameters of the UUI header. =20 I had a comment on the first sentence of Section 4.1 that does not seem to = have been addressed. What is the meaning of "only" in this sentence? > The User-to-User (UUI) header field can be present in INVITE requests > and responses only and in BYE requests and responses. JR - The use of "only" here now looks superfluous, since the sentence goes = on to discuss another context where the UUI header can be used; it probably= would be clearer if "only" is deleted. =20 Thanks, Gonzalo On 02/12/2012 1:44 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Workin= g Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control= Information in SIP > Author(s) : Alan Johnston > James Rafferty > Filename : draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2012-12-01 >=20 > Abstract: > There is a class of applications which benefit from using SIP to > exchange User to User Information (UUI) data during session > establishment. This information, known as call control UUI data, is > a small piece of data inserted by an application initiating the > session, and utilized by an application accepting the session. The > rules which apply for a specific application are defined by a UUI > package. This UUI data is opaque to SIP and its function is > unrelated to any basic SIP function. This document defines a new SIP > header field, User-to-User, to transport UUI data, along with an > extension mechanism. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-08 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > cuss mailing list > cuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ cuss mailing list cuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss