Subject: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-04 and draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-03

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:55:44 -0500

Hi all,

This is to announce Working Group Last Call on the following documents:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-data
set-04.txt  (Recently updated to address the merging issue discussed on
the mailing list)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-03
.txt (Unchanged since prior to IETF-68)

This WGLC will end on 11 June 2007.

Since the WG has previously reviewed these documents, the plan is to
keep the same set of reviewers that previously volunteered: 
     Bob Penfield, Shida Schubert, Flemming Andreasen, Roni Even  
However, anyone additional that would like to volunteer would be
appreciated to get a fresh set of eyes on the document. 

Feedback should be sent to the authors' email addresses (which is cc'ed
using the tools alias in the above for your convenience) and please copy
the SIPPING mailing list.  

Note: the original plan was to WGLC this set of documents along with the
framework document that moved to SIP.  So, stay tuned for an
announcement on the SIP list of the WGLC plans for that document. 

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: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:19:24 +0300

Hi all,

I just recently joined the list, and therefore would like to ask if it
has been discussed what should happen with
draft-petrie-sipping-profile-datasets-04, to which the media policy
draft makes a normative reference.

It seems that the profile-datasets is currently an (expired) individual
submission; should that be accepted as a working group item before
moving on with the media-policy-data draft?

Regards.
Simo Veikkolainen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 21.05.2007 23:56
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]
>Subject: [Sipping] WGLC: 
>draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-04 
>anddraft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-03
>
>Hi all,
>
>set-04.txt  (Recently updated to address the merging issue 
>discussed on the mailing list)
>Since the WG has previously reviewed these documents, the plan 
>is to keep the same set of reviewers that previously volunteered: 
>     Bob Penfield, Shida Schubert, Flemming Andreasen, Roni 
>Even However, anyone additional that would like to volunteer 
>would be appreciated to get a fresh set of eyes on the document. 
>
>Feedback should be sent to the authors' email addresses (which 
>is cc'ed using the tools alias in the above for your 
>convenience) and please copy the SIPPING mailing list.  
>
>Note: the original plan was to WGLC this set of documents 
>along with the framework document that moved to SIP.  So, stay 
>tuned for an announcement on the SIP list of the WGLC plans 
>for that document. 
>
>Thanks,
>Mary
>SIPPING WG co-chair
>
>
>
>This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use 
>[email-masked] for questions on current sip

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:39 -0500

This is a really good question.

My understanding was that work on the petrie-sipping-profile-datasets
had been deferred while the revised configuration framework draft was
being worked.  But, yes, that document will need to be progressed before
the media-policy-dataset draft could be published as an RFC.  But, we
can still complete the WGLC on the policy drafts.  

This does highlight the interesting dependencies amongst these drafts.
For example, the pretrie-profile-datasets draft has normative
dependencies on the sipping-config-fw and the sip-policy-fw, while those
are only informational for the media-policy-dataset, whose normative
dependency is the petrie-profile-datasets.  

Regards,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:19 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-04
anddraft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-03

Hi all,

Regards.
Simo Veikkolainen

---

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:39:11 +0300

Mary,
I reviewed each document by itself and my view is that the problem is
with having the session independent work together with the session
dependent.
This is not a major problem for the session policy framework and the
policy package but when looking at the dataset it is clear that the
session dependent policy has no dependencies on the configuration
framework and if the data set was just for the session dependent policy
than the issue in this thread will not be relevant.

I already commented that the relationship between session dependent and
session independent is not crucial. 

To me the session independent policy is configuration and should be part
of the configuration framework. Re-using of component can happen without
having both in the same dataset document

Roni Even

> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:51 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; sipping-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-
> 04anddraft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-03
> 
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] WGLC:

---

From: Volker Hilt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:50:04 -0400

Mary, Roni,

even though the data set formats were designed to be used with the 
configuration and policy framework, they can also be used independently. 
For example, it seems possible to deliver a data set document through 
FTP. For this reason, I think it makes sense to have an informal but not 
a normative dependency.

To Roni's comment, the two usages of the media policy dataset (for 
session independent and session specific policies) share many of the 
elements defined. For this reason, I do think it makes sense to define 
them both in a common document and I don't see how splitting this up 
would help.

For the policy framework draft, the dependency between session 
independent and the session specific policies is loose in a sense that 
they both use different mechanisms. However, they both cover session 
policies and therefore seems reasonable to discuss them in one framework 
document.

Volker

-- 
Volker Hilt                      Bell Labs / Alcatel-Lucent
phone: +1 732 332 6432           101 Crawfords Corner Rd
email: [email-masked]     Holmdel, NJ 07733