Subject: [sipcore] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:07:51 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Warren - short, clear, and to the point.

I agree with EKR and Kathleen about requiring authentication.

In this text,

   Thus, the call is rejected due to the called party's
   (temporary) disposition.
   
I'm having trouble matching dictionary definitions to the use of
"disposition" here. I guess it's an OK use of the word, and I know what's
intended based on context clues, but if another word would be clearer,
that would be helpful.

This text,

   The particular response code number
   was chosen to reflect the distaste felt by many upon receiving such
   calls.
   
is unchanged from the previous version, where the response code number
was 666. Is that intentional?

Just checking - in this text, 

   The service
   provider delivering calls or messages to the user issuing the
   response MAY take a range of actions, for example, add the calling
   party to a personal blacklist specific to the called party, use the
   information as input when computing the likelihood that the calling
   party is placing unwanted calls ("crowd sourcing"), initiate a
   traceback request, or report the calling party identity to consumer
   complaint databases operated by government authorities.
   
there's no standardized way for the called party to signal that this
action should be reversed, is there? I ask, because the next paragraph
says,

   The user experience is envisioned to be somewhat similar to email
   spam buttons where the detailed actions of the email provider remain
   opaque to the user.
   
and I use the "this is not spam" button on email fairly frequently. The
security considerations section does talk about the protected party
notifying the service provider using unstandardized mechanisms - I see
that. Maybe a forward pointer to that discussion would be helpful.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:54:54 +0000

Spencer,

Thanks for your comments. Inline below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]]

In this text,

   (temporary) disposition.

that would be helpful.

I’ll replace by “status”. I meant something like the “presence status” (busy, driving, in the shower, etc.).

This text,

   calls.

This was also pointed out by Brett Tate; I removed the now-meaningless sentence.

   The service

I don’t see how this would be possible. Once you have rejected the call, it’s gone. (That’s where the email analogy breaks down, as the call isn’t just dumped into a folder.) Post-call mechanisms, e.g., from the call log, would likely be some HTTP API, as SIP wouldn’t fit. Maybe we can define YANG model, since it’s used for just about everything else ☺

says,

   opaque to the user.

As far as I know, there is really no standard spam (or no-spam) protocol indicator in email. All the no-spam buttons either just influence some local MUA behavior (e.g., create some kind of whitelist entry) or are translated to IMAP commands (e.g., to move the message out of the spam folder).

I will add a forward reference.

Henning

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:41:12 -0500

Hi, Henning,

Top posting to say this is all fine, and thanks for the quick response!

Spencer

On Apr 27, 2017 15:54, "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Spencer,

-----Original Message-----

In this text,

   (temporary) disposition.

that would be helpful.

I’ll replace by “status”. I meant something like the “presence status”
(busy, driving, in the shower, etc.).

This text,

   calls.

This was also pointed out by Brett Tate; I removed the now-meaningless
sentence.

   The service

I don’t see how this would be possible. Once you have rejected the call,
it’s gone. (That’s where the email analogy breaks down, as the call isn’t
just dumped into a folder.) Post-call mechanisms, e.g., from the call log,
would likely be some HTTP API, as SIP wouldn’t fit. Maybe we can define
YANG model, since it’s used for just about everything else J

says,

   opaque to the user.

As far as I know, there is really no standard spam (or no-spam) protocol
indicator in email. All the no-spam buttons either just influence some
local MUA behavior (e.g., create some kind of whitelist entry) or are
translated to IMAP commands (e.g., to move the message out of the spam
folder).

Henning