Re: [dispatch] DISPATCH IETF-76 plans - Reason in Responses

<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Fri, 02 October 2009 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7C93A69F5 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WP8Pr7AxLcR for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9E63A69F4 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2009 07:51:19 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.13]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:51:18 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:51:17 +0200
Message-ID: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD4050708F2@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF205954B0@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] DISPATCH IETF-76 plans - Reason in Responses
Thread-Index: Aco218uRw/+yRdYvQ/arq4KyAr2raQLC3g2wAC7St9AAIQetwA==
References: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF205954B0@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de
To: mary.barnes@nortel.com, dispatch@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2009 05:51:18.0247 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C73FF70:01CA4324]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] DISPATCH IETF-76 plans - Reason in Responses
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:49:59 -0000

 Dear all,
I see that after my renewal of the draft only some comments were given.
We see this as an important issue to keep interoperability between PSTN and SIP networks.

Meanwhile there is also a request on putting a Reason Header within a 183 Progress due to the fact that it is possible to put a Q.850 cause value within an ACM including an indication that an announcement is played.

This case would be valuable for a PSTN - SIP -PSTN passing without any use of SIP-T.

The main used case is to put the Reason Header within 4xx, 5xx, 6xx and 199 to send an specific indication either back into an other PSTN or an Application Server that can put an announcement into the path based on the ISUP cause.

But nevertheless I Would like to see this draft on the agenda and at least as an Woki Item within DISPATCH.

Best regards

Roland  

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Barnes
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2009 15:56
An: dispatch@ietf.org
Betreff: [dispatch] DISPATCH IETF-76 plans

Hi all, 

Per Gonzalo's reminder on Sept. 16th, charter proposals for the topics
to be handled/dispatched prior to and at IETF-76 were due on Sept. 21st.
The following summarizes the status of the topics that had been
previously put forth - both prior to Sept. 7th deadline and up through
the 21st. Obviously, we have to balance interest and willingness to
contribute to the work (based on mailing list discussions) with the fact
that some folks were more conscientious in meeting the deadlines. 

We received charter proposals (problem statements/deliverables) for the
following, with the current status highlighted.  

o Overload (received prior to Sept. 16th) - separate mailing list setup.
Needs more discussion. 

o CBUS: some good discussion on problem statement. Needs more
discussion.

o Session recording: updated charter proposal based on IETF-75 feedback.
Need more WG feedback. Is this ready?  

o Disaggregated media: Good level of interest 

o SIP - XMPP:  High level of WG interest. Propose a separate Mailing
list and Adhoc at IETF-76. 

o Alert-info URNs: Good level of interest. 

o NGN Reason: Some interest. Needs more discussion and scoping. 

The above items are the current targets for IETF-76 discussions.  Based
on those discussions, agenda time will be allocated, items dispatched
and adhocs scheduled as appropriate. Note, that the minimum time we
would allocate to a topic is 30 minutes and some may warrant 45 minutes.
If we schedule adhocs, we will try to have those announced around the
time the agenda is finalized. 

As a reminder, the following are the cutoffs for drafts, so please make
sure that any drafts relevant to the topic are submitted prior to those
deadlines:
* - 00 documents:  Oct. 19th (just over 2 weeks)
* all other documents: Oct. 26th (just over 3 weeks)

Please keep in mind that the focus of discussions should be the problem
statement, scope and proposed deliverables for the topic.    

We did not receive charter proposals for the following. The current
status is summarized:
o Third-party authorization: Pre-IETF-75 problem statement had some
discussion. But, no discussion since that time. 
o Identity: Document available. Need further discussion and WG feedback
to refine requirements, problem statement, scope and
deliverables/milestones. 
o Domain registrations in SIP: Problem statement posted, but no
deliverables/milestones or document. 
o Reference to an earlier communication: Problem statement posted, but
no deliverables/milestones or document. 

As a reminder, items can be dispatched without being discussed at a f2f
meeting and the most effective way to achieve this is to have problem
statements, scope of topics and any relevant documents available early
enough for the WG to provide feedback - i.e., you do not have to wait
for the pre-meeting deadlines, which are more in the way of drop dead
dates than optimal dates.  

Please, let the chairs know if there are any concerns.

Thanks,
Mary Barnes
DISPATCH WG co-chair
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch