Subject: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-01.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:43:00 -0500

Hi all,

This is to announce Working Group Last Call on the following draft
(slightly later than originally planned): 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribut
e-01.txt

We would like to recruit at least 2 more volunteers to serve as
dedicated reviewers. 
If you are interested and willing to review this draft, please send an
email to the SIPPING chairs.  The spreadsheets tracking the
reviews/deadlines will be updated shortly. 

As always, anyone else that gets a chance to review should also send
their feedback to the authors and copy the SIPPING mailing list. 

This WGLC will end on Sept 19th, 2006 (two weeks time). 

Thanks, 
Mary 
SIPPING WG co-chair

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:08:11 -0400

I have simple, but significant concern with this draft, namely the word
"capacity".  For those who have not read it, it has nothing to do with a
quantity (the capacity of the room, or what I thought it might mean,
something to do with messages/calls per second); it has to do with
implementing a cc:, and bcc: mechanism.  The other word used in the document
is "role".

I protest that we create confusion when we choose the word "capacity" for
this purpose.  It is not correct to say the capacity of the URI is "bcc".
It's not even correct to say that the role is bcc.  You would say "Please
send this URI a blind carbon copy of the message")

There is no one nice replacement word I can think of.  I suggest
"copyControl".

The text doesn't even say that the purpose of the document is to implement a
cc and bcc mechanism.  Shouldn't it explicitly say that somewhere in Section
1?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-01.txt
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:57:59 -0500

>implementing a cc:, and bcc: mechanism.  The other word used in the document

Role...

It uses "role"?

This seems to conflict with the idea of role-base things, such as 
role-based authorization.  Individuals have roles, things have traits. This 
is why RFC 4484 changed its name to Trait Based Authorization from Role 
Based Authorization (using SAML or X.509).

Just because role there changed to trait doesn't mean role is 
inappropriate, just that role didn't cover all the possibilities of that use.

Is role here in this ID used in a context such as categorizing a person?

If not, this word should be replaced too.

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:43:07 +0300

I think I like the "copyControl" terminology suggested by Brian. So, we 
will review the draft and avoid the misleading terms "capacity" and "role".

/Miguel

James M. Polk wrote:
> role-based authorization.  Individuals have roles, things have traits. 
> This is why RFC 4484 changed its name to Trait Based Authorization from 
> Role Based Authorization (using SAML or X.509).
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland