> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > I see your point about this adding a value to the entry created by RFC 4458. > Is there a reason this can not simply be PS? The fact that 4458 is > Informational does not, as far as I can tell, justify continuing the error. > While this is for a 3GPP usage, it appears to have been reviewed by the > Dispatch WG sufficiently to justify PS. > One could argue that there is a down-ref issue, > but the fact that the field is in a standards-track required registry would > seem to make that a moot point. >
Do you think it makes sense to make some new values for “cause” into a proposed standard when “cause” itself is informational? That seems like a pretty big downref issue, as such issues go. (For the record, I could be convinced to re-run this LC as PS, but I suspect that would lead to objections in the opposite direction.) Right now, the situation is a standards-action registry with a informational entry. That’s clearly broken, but I’m not sure that _this_ draft is the place to fix it. Also, if it makes any difference—even there there was discussion in dispatch, this is not a dispatch work item. > Yours, > Joel > > PS: It would seem that WG discussion of that sort is something we would like > to see in Shepherd writeups. There’s two paragraphs on the subject in section (1) of the shepherd writeup :-) (but it wasn’t a working group discussion per se.) Thanks! Ben. > > On 12/15/16 11:28 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> >> Thanks for the comments. There has been a fair amount of discussion >> about the status of the draft. The situation is clearly not optimal, and >> I welcome input on how to straighten it out. >> >> The rational so far has been that this draft updates RFC 4588, which is >> informational. It adds some additional values and related semantics for >> the "cause" parameter from 4588. It does not register new parameters; >> rather it adds itself as a reference in the existing "cause" >> registration. This is mainly a courtesy to readers. (There is no >> sub-registry for "cause" parameter values.) We might could get by >> without that change, since in a perfect world people following the IANA >> reference to 4588 would notice the "Updated by..." tag. >> >> The gotcha is that RFC 4588 would not be possible as an informational >> today; it would not have standing to register the "cause" parameter. But >> at the time it was published, there was a lack of clarity around the >> "standards action" policy for the SIP URI parameters registry. Making >> the new values from _this_ draft standards track, when the parameter >> itself is not, doesn't seem appropriate. We had some discussion about >> whether we should promote 4588 to PS, but there was not consensus to do >> so when it was published, and I don't see reason to expect that to have >> changed. >> >> This draft is primarily intended to meet a need in 3GPP, where I >> understand they are effectively already doing this. Would it help to >> more tightly scope this as "Here's something 3GPP is doing..." rather >> than as a general mechanism? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> >> On 15 Dec 2016, at 21:57, Joel Halpern wrote: >> >>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>> >>> Major: >>> This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new >>> behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info. I >>> am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC. It looks >>> like it either Proposed Standard or experimental. Yes, I see that RFC >>> 4458, which this updates is Informational. But just because we did it >>> wrong before does not make that behavior correct now. In addition to >>> my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC 3969 >>> and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made by >>> a standards track RFC. >>> >>> Minor: >>> Given our emphasis on IPv6 over IPv4, would it not make sense for >>> the examples to use IPv6 addresses? (Inspired by the Id-Nits alert.) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
