[Sip] Comments on draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00

["DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

If we go with this approach, then I would note that there are a number
of additional issues we need to address, for which material is not yet
on the table:

1)	We should provide guidance as to when it is appropriate to
define an INFO package and when some other mechanism should be used.
draft-burger-sip-info-02.txt is one extreme of this which says NEVER.
This guidance will need to be taken account of by any review process
(whatever it is) for IANA registration.

2)	The registry of packages has to exist. Need to define the review
requirements for adding to the registry.

3)	There should be a template associated with such packages. This
should prompt the definer of a new package to specify all issues that
should be covered. In particular, one area which needs to be covered is
how the embedded information tranfer caters for out of sequence
delivery, given that the carriage mechanism does not guarantee order of
delivery in all circumstances of SIP usage.

4)	RFC 2976 still references the obsolete SIP RFC, and therefore
presumably operates to the state machine defined in that RFC, rather
than the one in RFC 3261. If we are going to resurrect INFO, then
presumably we need to replace RFC 2976 with either this draft, or a
companion draft, rather than just update it.

5)	Do we define packages for ISUP and QSIG?

We will need to understand how each of these issues needs to be
addressed before we can charter WG deliverables.

Regards

Keith


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip