Subject: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:39:03 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Core of the IETF.

        Title           : A SIP Response Code for Unwanted Calls
        Author          : Henning Schulzrinne
	Filename        : draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2017-04-20

Abstract:
   This document defines the 607 (Unwanted) SIP response code, allowing
   called parties to indicate that the call or message was unwanted.
   SIP entities may use this information to adjust how future calls from
   this calling party are handled for the called party or more broadly.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:00:11 -0400

I find the following from section 4 to be a bit odd/confusing:

    Call handling for unwanted calls is likely to involve a combination
    of heuristics, analytics, and machine learning.  These may use call
    characteristics such as call duration and call volumes for a
    particular caller, as well changes in those metrics over time, as
    well as user feedback.  Implementations will have to make appropriate
    trade-offs between falsely labeling a caller as unwanted and
    delivering unwanted calls.

Is this intending to discuss automated behavior of the called party UA, 
or behavior of the called party, or something else?

ISTM that "heuristics, analytics, and machine learning" are more likely 
to be applied by a middle box than the called UA. In a middle box those 
will be used to trigger coding per the callinfo-spam draft, which is 
outside the scope of this document.

Presumably the called UA may use some techniques to decide to 
automatically generate a 607 response. The most likely I can think of is 
for it to remember a 607 was previously generated for this caller and to 
repeat it automatically for future calls from the same caller.

Perhaps simply changing "Call handling for unwanted calls" to "Automatic 
recognition of unwanted calls". But that may be too simplistic.

Otherwise this version seems good to me.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:19:51 +0000

This is meant to be a general description, not specific to the SIP response or the UA. The idea, I think, was that people wanted to emphasize that the 'unwanted' response was just one of several inputs. But this context got lost in the editing.

Would prefixing this with "The mechanism described here is only one of many inputs likely to be used for dealing with unwanted calls." address the ambiguity?

Henning

________________________________
From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 3:00:11 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05.txt

        Thanks,
        Paul

---

From: "Asveren, Tolga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:52:09 +0000

I think that would be useful indeed. Maybe adding a few words about the entity performing this could be even more attractive:

"The mechanism described here is only one of many inputs likely to be used by network analytics logic for dealing with unwanted calls."

Thanks,
Tolga

From: sipcore [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:20 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05.txt

Henning

________________________________
From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 3:00:11 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05.txt

        Thanks,
        Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:21:28 -0400

On 4/22/17 6:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> This is meant to be a general description, not specific to the SIP
> response or the UA. The idea, I think, was that people wanted to
> emphasize that the 'unwanted' response was just one of several inputs.
> But this context got lost in the editing.
>
>
> Would prefixing this with "The mechanism described here is only one of
> many inputs likely to be used for dealing with unwanted calls." address
> the ambiguity?

That would help. I think what is missing is any mention that the 607 
responses are expected to be used as input to a process for *predicting* 
when *future* calls will be unwanted.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Henning
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 22, 2017 3:00:11 PM
> *To:* Henning Schulzrinne
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [sipcore] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-05.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>