Subject: RE: [Sip] WGLC for URI and Header Parameter Registries

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:45:23 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:41 PM
> To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP-MSW/Helsinki)
> Cc: [email-masked]; Niemi Aki (NMP/Helsinki);
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Sip] WGLC for URI and Header Parameter Registries
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 01:06, [email-masked] wrote:
> > I agree with that, but what would you call the parameters created by
> > 3GPP? are they one-off? They are certainly not thrown away 
> after being
> > used once.
> > 
> 
> The 3GPP p-headers are documented by informational RFCs, as 
> required by
> RFC 3427. I'm not up to date on any parameters they've proposed, but I
> would expect those to be properly documented, if there are any.

I am referring to parameters that will be proposed in the future :) 3GPP delegates have the impression that if the parameter would be defined just for 3GPP use, then it does not need to be registered. I think it does.

> 
> > I'm not suggesting that every parameter needs an RFC. I'm suggesting
> > that every parameter needs to be registered.
> 
> You mean "every WIDELY USED parameter", right? That would make it
> consistent with what you say next . . .

Yes.

> 
> > If the student's project starts to be widely used and 
> adopted, then he
> > needs to register his parameter. I don't know when you do 
> and when you
> > don't need and RFC. That's a separate issue.
> 
> Well, under the policy we have proposed, if the parameter starts to be
> widely used, then it needs an RFC.
> 
> One alternative that might make you happier is a policy of
> "Specification Required", where that specification can be any publicly
> acessible body of work recognized by the RFC Editor, including ITU and
> 3GPP specs.

This sounds great, and does make me happier actually :)

/Hisham

> --
> Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:19:05 -0500

On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 11:45, [email-masked] wrote:
> I am referring to parameters that will be proposed in the future :)
> 3GPP delegates have the impression that if the parameter would be
> defined just for 3GPP use, then it does not need to be registered. I
> think it does.

I don't know. Do you think that there will ever be an implementation of
a 3GPP spec that tries to talk to an Internet systems? I'm kind of
hoping the two will interoperate . . . at least a little bit.
Parameter-name conflicts, especially for stuff REQUIRED by 3GPP, would
not help this much. So I'd really like to see their "widely implemented"
parameters registered.

> This sounds great, and does make me happier actually :)

OK, so would we all (except maybe Bill Marshall, who just proposed a
"very short list" approach) be happy with "Specification Required"
language that would allow registration of a parameter based on 3GPP
specifications without an RFC?

--
Dean

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:28:22 -0400

> specifications without an RFC?

I would push this one step further.

One practical problem is one of timing. Implementations are often done 
(and recommended) long before the final spec (RFC, 3GPP final version, 
etc.) is available.

That is also the stage where a central registry is most useful, given 
that it is difficult for developers to track all I-Ds and other 
in-progress standards documents. In some cases, access to these 
documents is restricted or it is difficult to find the relevant ones. 
(Quick, which 23.* documents define SIP parameters and which of the 
dated directories should you look at?)

One suggestion would be to register parameters from *WG* I-Ds, for 
example, as in draft-ietf-*, and equivalent maturity levels from other 
SDOs. The registration could have a 'preliminary' asterisk of some sort 
to indicate the lack of final documentation status.

Henning

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:26:15 -0400

We took that approach in the Megaco package registry.

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

...

> to indicate the lack of final documentation status.
...