Subject: Re: [siprec] Consensus call - removal of REQ-072

From: Deepanshu Gautam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:29:20 +0800

Hi All,

Sorry for the late response. Was on immense travel lately.
About deleting REQ-72 I already agreed for that before Beijing meeting. For
those who don't remember that discussion the agreement was that the REQ-72
can be deleted if it is agreed and understood by the group that "An optional
mechanism will be provided by SIPREC for this and implementations will
choose to implement it or not (in their products - which they may claim to
be IETF SIPREC compliant) depending on the needs of the clients/system" This
was the essence of the agreement, am I right John?

But, then after the Beijing meeting (which I missed) I found a statement
somewhere in a e-mail thread saying that group decided to delete REQ-72 (no
problem) and discussed (or decided I don't know) to use MUST/SHALL in the
solution specification, here I have a problem (And, I certainly don't want
to neglect MUST of a SIPREC spec and make my solution not-complaint). And as
I have stated many times there are real-world scenarios/requirements (agent
monitoring system) in which users of the CS are not notified about the
recording (at least the agent is not notified, the other party may be. That
was the reason why I came up with the revision of REQ-72). And, after
reading replies from several people I see no reason why the revisited
version of 72. It is not violating charter/wiretapping, Ram, whants SIPREC
to provide optional mechanism, that what I want too :-)

Let me move backward a bit also, in the ancient time of our Req. document
this requirement was "The mechanism SHALL notify the users...." It was
changed to "The mechanism MUST provide a means to notify....." and the
argument was that SIPREC will provide an optional mechanism for this, which
implementation MAY choose to implement. Am I right John?? I'm not saying
that nothing agreed once can't be discussed again but MUST not be entirely
reversed. 

So, if we wants to use MUST/SHALL for this in solution spec then I'm not
with it. I object to delete REQ-72 (I'm ok if it is replaced it my revision)
in this case.

Regards
Deepanshu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Leon Portman
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:44 PM
To: Elwell, John; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Consensus call - removal of REQ-072

Yes, I agree to remove

Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Elwell, John
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [siprec] Consensus call - removal of REQ-072

I believe we have rough consensus to remove REQ-072: "It SHALL be possible
to establish an RS without notifying the CS participants.".

If anyone strongly objects to this, please state your arguments (even if
they have already been stated) as soon as possible.

John (as chair)
_______________________________________________
siprec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
_______________________________________________
siprec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:33:25 +0100

Deepanshu,

Understood. I don't think we can decide on exact words for the solution document before we even have a draft. So I take it that you are in agreement with deleting REQ-072 and we will discuss the wording in the solution document when the time comes.

John (as chair) 

> From: Deepanshu Gautam [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 01 December 2010 10:29
> To: 'Leon Portman'; Elwell, John; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [siprec] Consensus call - removal of REQ-072
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Leon Portman
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Elwell, John