(+ART ADs)
On 26 Feb 2016, at 14:43, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
Minor:
- S1, "Other RAI working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not
change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other
technologies for interactive communication among humans."
Are we intentionally limiting interactive communications only to
"humans"? I would suspect that this would be limiting, no? A
bunch of SIP SUBS/NOTs happen between automaton, or machines.
Surely we don't want to exclude these in the future. My suggestion
would be to simply take out the phrase "among humans".
Hi Vijay,
Actually, the "human" part was intentional. RFC5727 was primarily about
technologies for human communication. Certainly some of those
technologies may be dual use (e.g. XMPP, SIP-Events), but the reason
they were historically in the RAI area is that the primary use cases
under consideration involved humans, or supported those that did. A
SUB/NOT protocol that was primarily intended for machine-to-machine use
probably would not have ended up in RAI.
Those boundaries are more blurred now since the merger of APP and RAI
into ART. But 5727 was primarily about the SIP change process. That text
in section 1 is intended to describe the scope of 5727, and in section 3
to describe the subset of ART wgs that historically would have been
considered RAI.
(I do note the use of RAI that probably needs to be fixed, or at least
put into past tense.)
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
