Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

Thank you.That seems a reasonable compromise among the constraints.  Ypyrs,Joel Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Ben Campbell Date: 1/27/17 14:17 (GMT-06:00) To: marianne.moh...@orange.com Cc: Joel Halpern

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

On 27 Jan 2017, at 11:15, marianne.moh...@orange.com wrote: Hi Joel, I have submitted a new version (v-13) of the draft. I have addressed your comment for IPv6 addresses format in the example. Concerning your major comment, the discussion is leaded by Ben. To that point: Please note that

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

Hi Joel, I have submitted a new version (v-13) of the draft. I have addressed your comment for IPv6 addresses format in the example. Concerning your major comment, the discussion is leaded by Ben. I hope I have correctly address your comment.

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

At this point I will defer to the relevant ADs. As far as I can tell, although the entry was created by an Informational RFC, the registry still claims that it is standards track. And since this document is defining behavior, it behaves more like a standards track document than an Informational

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > I see your point about this adding a value to the entry created by RFC 4458. > Is there a reason this can not simply be PS? The fact that 4458 is > Informational does not, as far as I can tell, justify continuing

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

I see your point about this adding a value to the entry created by RFC 4458. Is there a reason this can not simply be PS? The fact that 4458 is Informational does not, as far as I can tell, justify continuing the error. While this is for a 3GPP usage, it appears to have been reviewed by the

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

Hi Joel, Thanks for the comments. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the status of the draft. The situation is clearly not optimal, and I welcome input on how to straighten it out. The rational so far has been that this draft updates RFC 4588, which is informational. It adds

[Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready with Issues Major: This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info. I am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC. It looks like it either