Subject: [salud] Revised SALUD minutes from IETF-78

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:08:49 -0400

[as chair]

I've gone through the minutes that Roland has graciously taken and clarified the English in various places.  In a few places, I've inserted words in [...] which appear to have been omitted by the speakers.  As far as I can tell, the meanings are unchanged.

Could everyone please verify their comments?

My current plan is to upload these to the IETF web site on the due date, Friday.

Dale
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SALUD, 1st afternoon session, 30.07.2010

------ Start Minutes ----------------

Jonathan Lennox was Jabber scribe.
Minutes taken by Roland Jesske.

---- Note Well statement was presented -----

Agenda was presented and agreed
(_http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/salud.html_)

Presentations can be found at:
_https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/78/materials.html_

Topic:  Charter

Charter for SALUD (Sip ALerting for User Devices WG) was presented.

No questions or concerns where mentioned.

Topic:  Adoption of Liess draft as WG Work Item

_draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns-02_
(_http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns-02.txt_)

Keith Drage: Asked if the scope of the draft fits the charter.

Dale Worley: answered Yes

Jonathan: Do any other candidates apply?

Dale: Answer no

Dale asked if it is the way to first publish an 03 draft or can we
adopt it immediately as the 01 draft for the working group?

Jonathan: If there’s going to be an -03 version of the draft, the WG
consensus call as to whether to adopt it would need to wait until that
version is published.

Robert Sparks: Put the revisions in an 03 draft and then ask for the
adoption of the draft as WI.

Keith: same in line

Keith asked to note that approach

It was agreed that the 02 Draft will be updated to 03 with the issues
discussed and then will poll for adoption the 03 Version as WG item.

Topic:  Design challenges in alerting

[Dale presenting as an individual.]

Dale: presented why the alert URN WG was worth to be built. See
_http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/salud-2.ppt_

Keith: said that ring back tone is not a international definition as
ITU-T has defined this.  Keith will look up for the correct term.

Comment to Slide - 3
It was mentioned that it is valuable that both ringtones and semantics can
be presented.

Keith: In ITU-T Recommendation E.182 (APPLICATION OF TONES AND
RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENTS IN TELEPHONE SERVICES) the term of definition
can be found (In ANNEX A).  "Ringing tone" is the correct term.

Topic:  Laura Liess' presentation:  Changes since -01 and open issues
_http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/salud-0.ppt_

Keith: The next version of Laura's draft will also have DISPATCH in
the name, not SALUD.

Laura pointed to the ad hoc meeting of the day before and will point to
the decisions of that add hoc.

Laura presented the Goals.

Slide #1 Alert-Info URN Definition and Purpose

Laura pointed that the add hoc meeting decided that rendering and semantics

Adam Roach: does not understand the difference between "rendering" and
"semantic" indications

Laura: Semantic is like "call wait" and rendering is like "long",
"short", etc.

Meeting had no further issues.

Slide #2 180 vs. 18x responses

Laura pointed that add hoc would like to see the Alert URN to be
included in all 1xx excluding 100.

Keith: Pointed to backward compatibility. In 18x it could happen that
existing implementations will not accept Alert URN.

Jonathan: You are only presenting the URN when you want to do something
with it.  Question if something will went wrong when the URN appears. But
that does not look likely.

Dale: Thinks that the Alert URN will be ignored when the device does
not understand the semantics.

Jabber Room: Gonzalo confirmed that he will check with RFC 3261 if this
if this is OK to put A URN into 1xx.

Keith: Propose a section that speaks about compatibility.

John Haluska: Was it discussed if something will be sent in-band (like
an announcement) and an alert URN. What will happen? Was this considered?

It was mentioned that perhaps it would be worthwhile to include such
consideration in the draft.

This was agreed

No more comments.

Slide #3 Requirements.

Laura: asked if some more requirements are needed.

This was not seen.

Slide #4 Use Cases

Laura pointed to the discussion of the add hoc meeting. And the
agreement to put this into the draft. Laura asked Adam to help into the
draft.

Keith: Can I ask that we only put in definitions [of signals] which
are clear and really defined in the world?

Adam: Thinks that a some of those are well defined and some not.  And,
of course, we have to look which we will [implement] really.

Some of them are more US-specific.

Dale: We need to have extensibility [so that implementors can include
whatever of these they wish].

Adam: Yes. We need it that people are satisfied within the feature that
if such definitions are needed that it could be included.

Laura: [Suggests] we do not [define all of these] in the draft

Adam: No we do not need. But if you do that we could do this. And if it
is needed then

Jonathan: Asked if "reorder" is a reason or a failure cause.  [Since
it is not a ringing tone] do not add it.

Adam: agreed

Keith: We need a clear definition. IANA registration information needs
words that for registration purposes that if somebody adds a new
extension. Then proper information is needed and is fully described to
provide the correct syntax and behaviour.

Dale: a lot of has to do with the semantic versus rendering issue
It must be clear whether the meaning is rendering or semantic.

Agreed

Keith: We must match Requirement 16 in the draft.

Slide #5 ABNF Syntax

It was agreed in the ad hoc to change the ABNF as proposed.

Jonathan: Why [the restriction to] 25 letters per [component]. He
proposed to look on that.

Slide #6 Multiple URNs  vs. single URN

Jabber Room: John Peterson said he will sent out comments on the list

Keith: How will we differentiate between the discussion of requirements
and the rest?

Kith: Propose a mini group last call on the requirements separately,
before the last call for the whole draft.

Dale: Noted

Slide #7 Alert-Info URN Values and extensibility rules

Laura asked for comments and opinions to those values.

Slide #8 Combination and Priority Rules

Laura this is depending on the use of multiple or single URN.

Slide #9 Extensibility rules

End of presentation.

Jonathan: Asking for security section.  Asking what will happen if some
semantics are in the URN that are not defined and how to trust the alert
info.  This should be covered by the security section.

Dale: Laura will within a few weeks upload the 03 draft and hum on the
adoption as WI.

Keith: Propose not to meet in Beijing.  He asked more for telephone
conferences to get the issues done.

--- End of meeting ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------