From andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com Thu Jan 3 03:16:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1167D21F8B13 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:16:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, 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 VWBd7JWKW97V for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB72521F8B0E for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 593AB1EB84B4; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:16:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.13]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:16:47 +0100 From: "Hutton, Andrew" To: Hadriel Kaplan Thread-Topic: [straw] WGLC: for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 Thread-Index: Ac3H6kYbsIfz/xJSSmKTVwJDTm18DAHGnvBQBCz8+QACeYktoA== Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 11:16:17 +0000 Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0139FDA4@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0414B2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0137640A@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <2E29CD95-9F0A-4F63-8CF6-3D3E683C614A@acmepacket.com> In-Reply-To: <2E29CD95-9F0A-4F63-8CF6-3D3E683C614A@acmepacket.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "straw-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "straw-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "straw@ietf.org" , Christer Holmberg Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC: for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:16:52 -0000 Hi Hadriel, Responses to your comments are inline below. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com] > Sent: 21 December 2012 21:21 > To: Hutton, Andrew > Cc: Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org; straw-chairs@tools.ietf.org; > straw-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC: for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 >=20 >=20 > Hi Andy, > thanks for reviewing the draft! > Comments/actions inline... >=20 >=20 > On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:56 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" enterprise.com> wrote: >=20 > > 1. Abstract. Could do with a bit more detail on what a SIP B2BUA > actually is and the roles it performs the statement "... performing > different roles in different ways" is I think a bit too vague. Maybe > you could mention some examples includes SBC's and Application Servers. >=20 > I can add that example - would that be sufficient for the abstract? [AndyH] - Yes. >=20 > > > > 2. Section 2, 3rd para. ", the odds of a SIP session the odds of a > SIP session crossing such media-plane B2BUAs increases". I am not sure > of the relevance of "media-plane B2BUAs" in this context. In fact I > think it would not harm to lose this paragraph altogether. >=20 > The point of it was to explain to folks why they should care. A lot of > people think of their own B2BUA being deployed in isolation, rather > than the SIP call continuing to hit other B2BUAs along its way to > wherever it's going. > OK to keep it? [AndyH] Yes maybe I am being pedantic but for me the text does not read wel= l could I suggest replacing the following: "As more and more SIP domains get deployed and interconnect, the odds of a = SIP session crossing such media-plane B2BUAs increases, as well as the numb= er of such B2BUAs any given SIP session may go through. In other words, any= given SIP session may cross any number of B2BUAs both in the SIP signaling= plane as well as media-plane." With "As more and more SIP domains get deployed and interconnect the probability= of a single SIP session crossing multiple B2BUA's at both the signaling an= d media planes increases significantly". >=20 >=20 > > 3. Section 3.1 states "This implies it does not modify SDP bodies, > although it may save them and/or operate on other MIME body types". > This is incorrect and in fact the subsection 3.1.3 describes such a > B2BUA which does modify SDP. I suggest the following text "A Signaling- > plane B2BUA is one that operates only on the SIP message protocol > layer, and only with SIP messages, bodies, and headers but not the > media itself in any way". The sentence about other MIME body types can > then be removed. > > > > 4. Section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. I am not sure why it is necessary to > separate the "SDP-Modifying Signaling Only" B2BUA from the "Signaling > Only B2BUA". The signaling only B2BUA section states that such a B2B UA > may "modify or inspect specific MIME bodies," why does it not just > include SDP as one of the MIME types a signaling-only B2BUA may modify? >=20 > Because for RAI mechanisms which use this taxonomy doc, it may make a > big difference - i.e., if you define something that operates in SDP it > will not matter to "normal" signaling B2BUAs, but may have an impact > for SDP-aware ones. For example the BUNDLE stuff, or much of MMUSIC's > work. > If you're a vendor that builds a B2BUA that is agnostic to SDP, you > don't have to worry about BUNDLE et al. If you build a signaling B2BUA > that inspects/modifies SDP, you do... even if your B2BUA doesn't > actually handle media itself. >=20 [AndyH] - Ok I agree that SDP is a special case but then we need to either = explicitly mention in section 3.1.2 that SDP is not a MIME type that a Sign= aling-only B2BUA can modify or not say anything about modifying MIME bodies= in 3.1.2 and limit it to the SIP layer as stated in the 1st sentence. I th= ink the later would be ok. >=20 > > > > 5. Section 4.1 "SIP PBXs and Softswitches". I don't understand the > reference to the UAC & UAS being "connected with a logical PRI > loopback;". I don't think this is really a valid analogy. If it is > meant to mean there may be signaling transcoding between the SIP UAS > and UAC then that it is what it should say. >=20 > It's just meant to explain that the term 'PBX' is a marketing term, and > that in practice some PBXes are full B2BUAs at all layers, while some > are not. (In a previous life I worked on a PBX that was a UAC/UAS with > a logical TDM layer connecting the call-halves) >=20 [AndyH] - In that case I think we can do without the last sentence which st= arts with "Some are based on ....". Less text is good. >=20 > > > > 6. Section 4.2. "Poxy-B2BUA" -> "Proxy-B2BUA" I assume >=20 > Yup. >=20 > > > > 7. Section 4.4 The last sentence states: > > > > "Some transcoders save and remove SDP offers in INVITEs form the UAC, > and wait for an offer in the response from the UAS, similar to a 3PCC > model; others just insert additional codecs in SDP offers and only > transcode if the inserted codec(s) are selected in the answer." > > > > I think this goes in to too much detail about how a transcoder might > work is not necessary and anyway the 3PCC bit sounds like rather > dubious practice which we don't need to say anything about. >=20 > This whole section (section 4) is about what SIP device types in the > market match up to what B2BUA roles in this doc. It does not prescribe > any behavior as being better or worse, but is more like a helper for > normal (non-IETF) people reading this doc. I have sen transcoders > operate in the 3pcc manner, and others not. So the point of calling it > out here was to say "it depends, and there is no one-size-fits-all > mapping in call cases". [AndyH] - Ok just change "form" to "from" them. >=20 > -hadriel >=20 From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Thu Jan 3 05:46:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680D821E8049 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:46:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 fl5npYpFI5eu for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:46:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com (mail-qc0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DED121E8045 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:46:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n41so7957232qco.35 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:46:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nRqcpB2/xZ0nAja9pR8bkvLBSJxj3e2zOPxS023bJgk=; b=rjqIlsE3wm6HP8SXZtlqRmROfRPkGpoae4M2f4FWYcuDTYjGUdjGiqReL3kEyEx0do rb8xALTau+PcZZ8jL9vvZxanF1oDkTzDXg+F7NawZpeiRpe/90oqC9CJW0OzZ3EtU6fO yuyyGMo7X4HcvbGc1pZIackNzx+9jFLeC6J+CICO5slfUEFL2HVEPVoIUfWAtZVce0vV ET6yCU1KupS56fPoo6KvUuqEXv3fs8gNIt6A9yvkGnh8+rZ6LNVzKTjyCvYcKacIG35w gR7/f5L828GMMvI+9oY6RHLzHd6LmTPZ84jE61QNgYtygnrToxc4StpzQEcwNob0hsp3 sexg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.49.127.139 with SMTP id ng11mr31713481qeb.54.1357220778049; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:46:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.131.199 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:46:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6EB25A40-6DAE-45C4-9194-1A56DC15A453@acmepacket.com> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0414B2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <6EB25A40-6DAE-45C4-9194-1A56DC15A453@acmepacket.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:46:17 -0600 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: Hadriel Kaplan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "straw-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "straw-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "straw@ietf.org" , Christer Holmberg Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC: for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:46:19 -0000 Responses inline below [MB]. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > Hi Mary, > Thanks for the review! > Comments/actions inline... > > On Nov 29, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > > General comments: > --------------------------- > - A fair number of references need to be added - I've identified many below. > - The document discusses Application Servers and PBXs throughout section 3, > but those terms aren't described until section 4, so I think at least a > forward reference should be added (although, that kindof makes it circular, > so maybe adding a generic definition something like the following to the > terminology section might be useful) and/or the terminology added to section > 1. > > > OK. > > > Minor comments: > ----------------------- > - Abstract - really could use a bit more intro. I would suggest to borrow > some text from the introduction - maybe the first paragraph. > > > You're the second person to suggest this, but I don't see it - or rather I > don't see how to do so in a useful way without repeating the intro section, > and really this is supposed to be an abstract not an intro - just enough > information for someone to decide whether to read the doc or not, right? > Does it not fulfill that goal? If not, what exact wording should be added? [MB] The current abstract doesn't provide the background/motivation as to why you are even writing this document. You are only explaining the objective of the document. I think you can move the first paragraph in the intro to the abstract - prepending it to the current abstract and it will address my concern. Then you can update the first sentence in the second paragraph so there is an appropriate lead in for the Intro simply by replacing "In practice," with "In current SIP deployments," [/MB] " > > > - Section 1 - Terminology: > -- Remove the reference to RFC 2119. I don't think it's necessary. > > > Done. > > > -- Also, I don't think B2BUA, UAS and UAC need to be defined here. They > should just be expanded on the first usage. I would just refer to the > definitions in RFC 3261 as you have for RFC 2828. > -- Per my comment above > > - Section 3, 2nd paragraph, last sentence. What is a "one-armed 3rd party > call control transcoder"? There is a reference to section 3.1 of RFC 5369, > but that doesn't use the "one-armed" terminology. I don't think referring > to "one-armed" adds value. I suggest simply removing it. > > > Done. > > > - Section 3.2.2: Add references for SRTP Terminator and RTCP for QoS > > done > > - Section 3.2.3: Add a reference for MSRP > > done > > - Section 4.6: Expand P-CSCF and IBCF. Add references to 3GPP architecture > and media plane gateway specs. > - Section 4.7: Expand S-CSCF. > > > Can I get away with just a reference to 3gpp's website of specs? [MB] I think specific references are more useful since the 3gpp website is not that easy to navigate unless you are fairly familiar with how they do their specs. I've spent way more time than one would think necessary pointing folks to specific 3gpp documents. [/MB] > > - Section 5: I would suggest to reword something like "The security > considerations related to the functionality described in this document are > addressed in the relevant references." > > > done. > > > Nits: > ------ > - Section 4.2: > -- expand VCC & IVR > -- last sentence: "Poxy-B2BUA" -> "Proxy-B2BUA" > - Section 4.4.: Expand TDM. > > > Done. > > -hadriel > > From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Mon Jan 21 00:46:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E291D21F85C0 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:46:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Fx-a27P6zqcq for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:46:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDE821F85B8 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:46:25 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f366d000004d10-a7-50fd00600d6c Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F3.04.19728.0600DF05; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:46:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.195]) by ESESSHC017.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.69]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:46:23 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 Thread-Index: Ac33s7J5o1t02mYrSY2bQpwlFbA3oA== Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:46:23 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6ESESSMB209ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW4Cw98Ag1tTZS1uNT9mdWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxtUrdgVT5SrObHvE1MC4R6qLkZNDQsBEYkvzbhYIW0ziwr31 bF2MXBxCAocYJU69WM0M4SxhlNgyew6Qw8HBJmAh0f1PG6RBREBVYsKXm4wgtrCAlcSxIweY IeL2ErMm32OCsPUkPp4+wwbSygJUv+1EFojJK+At8WmCEUgFI9Da76fWgFUzC4hL3Hoynwni HAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhbAVJXaebWeGqM+X2L56A1icV0BQ4uTMJywTGIVmIRk1C0nZLCRl EHEdiQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+Zoaxzxx4zIQsvoCRfRUje25iZk56udEmRmDAH9zyW3UH451zIocY pTlYlMR5w10vBAgJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpg5F76x3KyzDyPtAru6kl24W7m nWun7SxnlJsckDLrt8OfhPdrHmhuOTox2irikWd4t+8d320bsz72p1c+5T9s+vnjBsmX28q5 kg0NehZkZR5iWXIto3Thw/lfo83OOZil3X+qnyTovaL77d6bKkXrLvRI2v9x/theJhKQt89F PidjqfGSJcdXK7EUZyQaajEXFScCAMOYgNBGAgAA Subject: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:46:30 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6ESESSMB209ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [As co-chair] Hi, I noted that Hadriel was ok with most of the WGLC comments given for the b2= bua-taxonomy document. However, he did have some questions/comments on some of the WGLC comments, = and there were some e-mails sent. However, unless I've missed something, nothing has been sent since January = 3rd. So, what is the status? Can Hadriel submit a new version of the document, b= ased on the WGLC comments, which we will then move forward. Or, are there s= till some issues which need to be discussed? Regards, Christer --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6ESESSMB209ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[As co-chair]

 

Hi,

 

I noted that Hadriel was ok with most of the WGLC co= mments given for the b2bua-taxonomy document.

 

However, he did have some questions/comments on some= of the WGLC comments, and there were some e-mails sent.

 

However, unless I’ve missed something, nothing= has been sent since January 3rd.

 

So, what is the status? Can Hadriel submit a new ver= sion of the document, based on the WGLC comments, which we will then move f= orward. Or, are there still some issues which need to be discussed?

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6ESESSMB209ericsso_-- From btv1==733199ea5bb==HKaplan@acmepacket.com Mon Jan 21 10:14:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A475C21F8658 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:14:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 SGM+erWqF5ux for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:14:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.acmepacket.com (mx1.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8FE21F8651 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:14:17 -0800 (PST) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1358792056-03fc200e93ea2f30001-uMHarY Received: from Mail1.acmepacket.com (mail1.acmepacket.com [10.0.0.21]) by mx1.acmepacket.com with ESMTP id 7Bt2CpcW7nWgubxu (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:14:16 -0500 (EST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.67]) by Mail1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.214]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:14:16 -0500 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: Christer Holmberg Thread-Topic: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 Thread-Index: AQHN+AMeKAOhCXywT0yFBg66hgcWPQ== Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:14:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.0.0.30] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BA5FE304303545709B2E71F1E7D12498acmepacketcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.acmepacket.com[10.0.0.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1358792056 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA X-Barracuda-URL: http://spam.acmepacket.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at acmepacket.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.120504 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:14:44 -0000 --_000_BA5FE304303545709B2E71F1E7D12498acmepacketcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy but not Paul, so I was w= aiting on that. Would you prefer I just submit another rev with the resolu= tions from Mary and Andy? -hadriel On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Christer Holmberg > wrote: [As co-chair] Hi, I noted that Hadriel was ok with most of the WGLC comments given for the b2= bua-taxonomy document. However, he did have some questions/comments on some of the WGLC comments, = and there were some e-mails sent. However, unless I=92ve missed something, nothing has been sent since Januar= y 3rd. So, what is the status? Can Hadriel submit a new version of the document, b= ased on the WGLC comments, which we will then move forward. Or, are there s= till some issues which need to be discussed? Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ straw mailing list straw@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw --_000_BA5FE304303545709B2E71F1E7D12498acmepacketcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <8DBBF8B4106E9E4682746E58F2A0FA21@acmepacket.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy but not Paul, so I = was waiting on that.  Would you prefer I just submit another rev with = the resolutions from Mary and Andy?

-hadriel


On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote= :

[As co-chair]
 
Hi,
 
I noted that Hadriel was ok with most of the WGLC comments given for the b2= bua-taxonomy document.
 
However, he did have some questions/comments on some of the WGLC comments, = and there were some e-mails sent.
 
However, unless I=92ve missed something, nothing has been sent since Januar= y 3rd.
 
So, what is the status? Can Hadriel submit a new version of the document, b= ased on the WGLC comments, which we will then move forward. Or, are there s= till some issues which need to be discussed?
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 
_______________________________________________
straw mailing list
straw@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/st= raw

--_000_BA5FE304303545709B2E71F1E7D12498acmepacketcom_-- From pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu Mon Jan 21 14:32:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F2E21F865D for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:32:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 x6uWSVYfVeQ2 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:32:22 -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 71F9021F85C3 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:32:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qe3n1k0071uE5Es55mYMPR; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:32:21 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qmYM1k00W3ZTu2S3cmYMUZ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:32:21 +0000 Message-ID: <50FDC1F5.1040607@alum.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:32:21 -0500 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: straw@ietf.org References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1358807541; bh=7ipk1eKrPhyAFSv2huMnT0E1hHSjsVMv4DfisereNmI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=CFmX/gwaNJYEIhTjdreNy64sZaID/IbhTp+VqxdCSzTKblMJMqrLTBodc/IvaJzNY qo+nWT0x08VL/MDgt+mDykTcwfQuk/drNefRUbvu7G1DSSbDx1H8CnouiG3qnVmRow E7IWv4ND2MuF4YtwXdDwixGXXRiiBrcA8dQ3xdYm88xoZQgx2mWzj83XMq24gRbKNx NatM6ovmAEIDwon8sYYPoFcZeFy0BxYZrDgfi/spqA1oA72Hsgf+JCR9w1L1cNOvDC ovzZ4Iu7dk83/FMAOFGcqJJy0QzKEyR1e69YXt9c9GawODmSUru2c/mMk0btnRM5HI 0xtuzW3BHJb3g== Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:32:29 -0000 On 1/21/13 1:14 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy but not Paul, so I > was waiting on that. Would you prefer I just submit another rev with > the resolutions from Mary and Andy? I sent comments back in December: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00066.html I just looked and see that there were never any replies. Thanks, Paul > -hadriel > > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Christer Holmberg > > > wrote: > >> [As co-chair] >> Hi, >> I noted that Hadriel was ok with most of the WGLC comments given for >> the b2bua-taxonomy document. >> However, he did have some questions/comments on some of the WGLC >> comments, and there were some e-mails sent. >> However, unless I’ve missed something, nothing has been sent since >> January 3rd. >> So, what is the status? Can Hadriel submit a new version of the >> document, based on the WGLC comments, which we will then move forward. >> Or, are there still some issues which need to be discussed? >> Regards, >> Christer >> _______________________________________________ >> straw mailing list >> straw@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw > > > > _______________________________________________ > straw mailing list > straw@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw > From btv1==733199ea5bb==HKaplan@acmepacket.com Mon Jan 21 14:47:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBD921F8745 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:47:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.873 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.726, 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 YP+wVAVpvPYA for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.acmepacket.com (mx1.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE3021F86F5 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:47:39 -0800 (PST) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1358808456-03fc200e93ebb8d0001-uMHarY Received: from Mail1.acmepacket.com (mail1.acmepacket.com [10.0.0.21]) by mx1.acmepacket.com with ESMTP id kTX3xb7l9H96QyrF (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:47:36 -0500 (EST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.67]) by Mail1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.214]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:47:35 -0500 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: Paul Kyzivat Thread-Topic: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 Thread-Index: AQHN+ClOGd7ZVx4iJU6rgx10tP4lAw== Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:47:35 +0000 Message-ID: <99998D33-3F07-46BA-A46F-2CD2AD8EFFF0@acmepacket.com> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <50FDC1F5.1040607@alum.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <50FDC1F5.1040607@alum.mit.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.0.0.30] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <283E1C1961DDDE4C8066C01222BF21FB@acmepacket.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.acmepacket.com[10.0.0.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1358808456 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA X-Barracuda-URL: http://spam.acmepacket.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at acmepacket.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.120522 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Cc: "" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:47:41 -0000 But I responded to that here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00071.html :) -hadriel On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > On 1/21/13 1:14 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >>=20 >> I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy but not Paul, so I >> was waiting on that. Would you prefer I just submit another rev with >> the resolutions from Mary and Andy? >=20 > I sent comments back in December: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00066.html >=20 > I just looked and see that there were never any replies. >=20 > Thanks, > Paul >=20 From pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu Mon Jan 21 20:54:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A094A21F84DE for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:54:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 JwQVuz21Do6Z for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF8B21F84BC for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:54:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qjXy1k00G1GhbT853suDJ3; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:54:13 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qsuC1k00f3ZTu2S3TsuCmM; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:54:13 +0000 Message-ID: <50FE1B74.7030205@alum.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:54:12 -0500 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hadriel Kaplan References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <50FDC1F5.1040607@alum.mit.edu> <99998D33-3F07-46BA-A46F-2CD2AD8EFFF0@acmepacket.com> In-Reply-To: <99998D33-3F07-46BA-A46F-2CD2AD8EFFF0@acmepacket.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1358830453; bh=7/5PBePzYBk2zzAu++KN0tXJaWHB/PZJRmGVr3/WWgY=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=rpL9LewudxFKpvWgwUerFmM4Cj4MNw+bwf3XvsHAlkWU3rG9lQGriVd8OLy2FE67f FkxFdhMgW5DWvh/cbZ6UBR250KAyrfXjPLrwXX5IZsU6qiZ9NWWa6ysEl07vtYkOmF msGK+jAvCwLUPFu88p3xHMrCCb2miIGIQ4Lmlgty2bUe2P8pHmgo92m9My51bzNz++ 6z2cbtNu41tHRSodyBOvJK+mESQjFuqbPo/Y75d02IepNYpAx+6pJHlwEXkfD44FxA wwwrQ9nwLGfOx9mnCsSzSrRcCADuGs+FIS+yLhB+g2FFep0pru8A5b+qdCCYU8XtJM KtFE+shgBSkjg== Cc: "" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:54:40 -0000 On 1/21/13 5:47 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > But I responded to that here: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00071.html > :) Oh, sorry. That was still in my inbox rather than filed. I had planned to reply but I lost track of it. I'll reply to that tomorrow. Sorry, Paul > -hadriel > > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >> On 1/21/13 1:14 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >>> >>> I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy but not Paul, so I >>> was waiting on that. Would you prefer I just submit another rev with >>> the resolutions from Mary and Andy? >> >> I sent comments back in December: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00066.html >> >> I just looked and see that there were never any replies. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> > > From christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Tue Jan 22 00:18:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B48921F856F for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:18:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 GGIuqZ+P43kg for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:18:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3739F21F84ED for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:18:12 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f316d0000028db-11-50fe4b4237e4 Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 24.D3.10459.24B4EF05; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:18:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.195]) by ESESSHC019.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:18:10 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Hadriel Kaplan Thread-Topic: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 Thread-Index: Ac33s7J5o1t02mYrSY2bQpwlFbA3oAARwqeAAB+FtrA= Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:18:09 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C58A1@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C3DF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C58A1ESESSMB209ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra6T978Agy9nzS3mXn7ObnGr+TGr A5PHpsmb2TyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx9cRm9oKG0IoDrXsZGxjn+XQxcnJICJhI fOxoYYKwxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcIhRYt+nl1DOEkaJPXd7WbsYOTjYBCwkuv9pgzSICGhLXJq0 lRXEZhZQlZjS3AlWIizgJjF5pxaIKSLgLnGn0Ryi2kriydFtbCA2C1B166SnLCA2r4C3xPW+ y6wQm5oZJb5enQB2D6eAk8Tbv9sYQWxGoNu+n1rDBLFKXOLWk/lQNwtILNlznhnCFpV4+fgf K4StKLHzbDszRH2+RN/M10wQywQlTs58wjKBUXQWklGzkJTNQlIGEdeRWLD7ExuErS2xbOFr Zhj7zIHHTMjiCxjZVzGy5yZm5qSXG25iBEbUwS2/dXcwnjoncohRmoNFSZw3zPVCgJBAemJJ anZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbG1MyGV6ptYUHLxT9K3Wdi4tATeP21i+e3ysPJUdr7DEQW hASzrI69UrVUecl9vauZwVck7KbN3zJnjVnIiYea742NvxoHfHhxR9PWcurTE59Pbf3yX2D/ vMn32y6y7zrw+/tvSxeTNzH7+Z88e7byibxmsM614oVMyee0TE+WBrH8Cowt4WnpVWIpzkg0 1GIuKk4EANbzVX52AgAA Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:18:14 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C58A1ESESSMB209ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [As co-chair] Hi Hadriel, Unless a new version is needed in order to help resolving any outstanding i= ssues, my suggestion is to wait until all issues are resolved. Regards, Christer From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com] Sent: 21. tammikuuta 2013 20:14 To: Christer Holmberg Cc: straw@ietf.org Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy but not Paul, so I was w= aiting on that. Would you prefer I just submit another rev with the resolu= tions from Mary and Andy? -hadriel On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Christer Holmberg > wrote: [As co-chair] Hi, I noted that Hadriel was ok with most of the WGLC comments given for the b2= bua-taxonomy document. However, he did have some questions/comments on some of the WGLC comments, = and there were some e-mails sent. However, unless I've missed something, nothing has been sent since January = 3rd. So, what is the status? Can Hadriel submit a new version of the document, b= ased on the WGLC comments, which we will then move forward. Or, are there s= till some issues which need to be discussed? Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ straw mailing list straw@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C58A1ESESSMB209ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[As co-chair]<= /span>

 <= /p>

Hi Hadriel,

 <= /p>

Unless a new version is n= eeded in order to help resolving any outstanding issues, my suggestion is t= o wait until all issues are resolved.

 <= /p>

Regards,

 <= /p>

Christer

 <= /p>

From: Hadriel = Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
Sent: 21. tammikuuta 2013 20:14
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: straw@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC status of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-= 00

 

 

I got responses to my responses from Mary and Andy b= ut not Paul, so I was waiting on that.  Would you prefer I just submit= another rev with the resolutions from Mary and Andy?

 

-hadriel

 

 

On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Christer Holmberg <<= a href=3D"mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com">christer.holmberg@ericsson= .com> wrote:



[As co-chair]

 <= o:p>

Hi,

 <= o:p>

I noted that Hadriel was ok with most o= f the WGLC comments given for the b2bua-taxonomy document.

 

However, he did have some questions/com= ments on some of the WGLC comments, and there were some e-mails sent.<= /o:p>

 

However, unless I’ve missed somet= hing, nothing has been sent since January 3rd.

 

So, what is the status? Can Hadriel sub= mit a new version of the document, based on the WGLC comments, which we wil= l then move forward. Or, are there still some issues which need to be discussed?

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

_____________________________________= __________
straw mailing list
straw@ietf.o= rg
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw=

 

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B0C58A1ESESSMB209ericsso_-- From pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu Tue Jan 22 09:35:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1F121F89BA for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:35:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 k06NjPUS8IhB for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D9021F891C for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qz8W1k0031c6gX8535boM6; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:48 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id r5bn1k00g3ZTu2S3j5bnzy; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:48 +0000 Message-ID: <50FECDF3.5020500@alum.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:35:47 -0500 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hadriel Kaplan References: <50BFD464.6090204@alum.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: 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=1358876148; bh=TIIbe1NCxKlvJf9VGQo2j8JNBliJdLIVXHgn290rr4Y=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=IXk5iQ37jOm3/+mV8VS0DPckaMFcSHEGPF4wJgHotnNr9RRPivPn8mhzrg/8hHDEj C2ynJ/t10tEltcBiHuDQw7Osz3Bkf/O2YbDBoFvpAeUUrCuhabE0gTm7r4THGyBYHY YGTHAmpDBZAKJdUuBxSRGuhtXDO9f+MjRCiF6R8f1VFNhAe7D/EY6B+kuEa01kPxVs kQAFmUv533ii/wiYti64quHkvzjw0eUG2lstKN04BM717Necd/WGVzTrH4yd2LuCXa jVYKMSGxBKjpdRn2C4H8bpa44ls3sg1c3RNqPMzjthtZYP3RH1yuSMoNGA+MvIIuDA RrIguLSP2TQDA== Cc: Victor Pascual , "" , Christer Holmberg Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC: for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:50 -0000 Sorry for the belated reply. I set it aside for the holidays and forgot to get back to it. Comments inline. On 12/21/12 4:45 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > Hi Paul, > thanks for reviewing the draft! > Comments/actions inline... > > On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >> I've only been looking at changes in this for awhile. Now that we are at WGLC I actually carefully read through it again. I have more comments than I thought I would. >> >> Section 3: [snip] >> >> Likewise, a one-armed >> third-party call control transcoder as described in section 3.1 of >> [RFC5369] is not a B2BUA; whereas an inline transcoder based on >> [RFC5370] is a B2BUA. >> >> IMO this is very subjective. There clearly *is* a distinction between the two cases, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't both B2BUAs. It would be very helpful to have both types of transcoders included so that it is possible to contrast the differences between the two. >> >> I think the problem here is that we don't have clear criteria for what to include and what to exclude. In this case I think the key distinction is whether or not the transcoder is on the signaling path between the caller and the UA that represents the callee. (Interestingly, that is also true of a conference focus, and for a UA that splits a multimedia call, sending the different media to different devices.) So maybe that is the criterion that matters. If so, it would be helpful to explicitly state this and ensure that the decisions are all made based on this. > > Right, exactly - it goes back to the debate we've had in the WG about whether a server acting as a UAS for multiple sessions (ie, is the target of them) is a "B2BUA" in the sense that we want to cover it with this doc, or not. > > I don't believe there's been resolution on that, has there? No, I don't think there has. We have use cases that are topologically very similar that some seem to want to classify differently. E.g. the 3rd party transcoder looks remarkably like a click-to-talk 3pcc controller. IMO this indicates that we haven't yet found the key distinctions. >> Section 3.1.1: >> >> As I brought up at the Atlanta meeting, a Proxy-B2BUA that generates in-dialog messages will need to "make room" in the progression of CSeq values for the messages it generates. This means, once it generates a message, that CSeq values will differ on the two "sides". The b2bua then must modify CSeq values to perform the mapping. >> >> (A Proxy-B2BUA that only generates a BYE message probably segments the session at that time, no longer forwarding messages, and so won't need to update CSeq values. But it will still need to know what CSeq value it can use for the BYE, so it will need to keep state.) >> >> This is a fairly significant issue, and IMO should be mentioned explicitly. > > Right, Brett Tate had brought this up as well, when the draft used to describe that a Proxy-B2BUA might send UPDATEs for session refresh/liveness. So I deleted the sentence that said so, in order to avoid having to explain what all such a Proxy-B2BUA might need to do. > But I'll put it in, as you've pointed out it's unavoidable. :) OK. Thanks. >> Section 3.1.2: >> >> I have always considered that there is a major distinction between those b2buas that replace the Contact with one of their own, and those that leave the Contact and use Record-Route to stay in the call. >> >> For example, one that replaces the contact can potentially use callee-caps to represent its capabilities/features, while the other kind must use Proxy-Feature to identify itself. The Proxy-Feature draft danced all around this, pretending it was only talking about proxies when in fact we all know it was intending to cover B2BUAs. If it had been able to reference this draft then having that distinction available could have been important. > > What textual changes do you want made to the draft for the above? I don't know. Does anyone else think this distinction is of any significance? ISTM that if you *don't* replace the contact then you are really wish to be a proxy, but can't live with the limitations of proxies. If you *do* replace the contact, then you are standing up and saying "I admit that I am a UA and claim all the capabilities and responsibilities that implies". >> Section 3.2: >> >> Such a B2BUA may or may not replace the >> Contact URI, modify or remove all Via and Record-Route headers, >> modify the To and From header fields, etc. >> >> I think you are saying that any of the Media-plane roles is compatible with any of the Signaling-plane roles. I wish you would say it explicitly. >> >> This would then mean that we could describe every B2BUA by naming both its signaling role and its media role. > > That as not my intention - I think any media-plane B2BUA has to modify the SDP, so the intention was that media-plane B2BUAs are a superset-of/go-beyond the SDP-modifying signaling level. I need to think about this more. It doesn't appear to me to fit a hierarchy very well. It seems more two-dimensional, though not all combinations may apply. >> Section 3.2.1: >> >> Such a role may only >> support UDP or only TCP or both, as well as other transport types or >> not. >> >> Should these be different roles? > > Should what be different roles? I'm confused by what you're referring to. My point is that a Media-plane B2BUA may be classified into one of the sub-roles (relay, aware, termination, or bypass) independently for each media type. You don't mention bypass here. If it uses bypass for all media types, then it is a Signaling-plane B2BUA. So these sub-types are useful, but you can't always classify a server into just one of them. >> What does it mean to *not* support some transport type? Does it mean that it is a signaling-only B2BUA wrt that media? Or that it blocks that media? >> (ISTM blocking the media is a signaling-only function - a variant on the SDP-Modifying Signaling-only role.) > > In practice I've only ever seen such devices block TCP media (or even just fail calls with TCP-based media). But I guess one could do a hybrid. Does it matter though? I mean if there's some new TCP-based media mechanism coming out of MMUSIC, that needs to say something about B2BUAs, can't they just say "Media-relay B2BUAs as defined in [RFCXXXX] need to support TCP and do X for our new mechanism to work"? We shouldn't be using TCP as an example here, because there are *already* TCP-based mechanisms in SDP. So lets use something newer, like SCTP - e.g. in draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-nn. I'm suggesting that the description needs to be more like: "A media-plane B2BUA (as defined in [RFCXXXX]) MUST apply one of media-plane roles (relay, aware, termination, or bypass) to this protocol." We would want every draft that defines a new to include similar language. Thanks, Paul