IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Lossless Recording in SIPREC

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Tue, 11 February 2014 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF61B1A08F5 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:37:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pw_Cyrbi_Tn9 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40C41A0690 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id E754E23F0527; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:37:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.100]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:37:44 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] Lossless Recording in SIPREC
Thread-Index: AQHPI1dDJyXBrcc2c0ma7EaQoC0IX5quiwsggAAamICAADNBAIAAL4FBgAC5HpA=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:37:43 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17CEF982@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CF199D4B.7A6E4%rmohanr@cisco.com> <4BEAD79F6904AC4FB1917EBA8006628905C0685D52@SOUEXC01.eu.nice.com> <CF19B110.7A78A%rmohanr@cisco.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17CEDF53@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAHBDyN4PfGJZsh1djzgNsB6PCiHQOgKAZ7JLOCm6gMWLJTGD0w@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12F844@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <201402102131.s1ALV1we4694874@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <201402102131.s1ALV1we4694874@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Gerben.Stam@nice.com" <Gerben.Stam@nice.com>, "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Lossless Recording in SIPREC
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:37:48 -0000

Hi,

As SIPREC co-chair I advised Gerben to discuss this topic on the SIPREC mailing list so that the SIPREC WG could assess whether it was in scope of SIPREC and if so whether the WG would want to work on it.  It was simply a mistake that the mail went to dispatch in the first place.

Of course if it turned out that it is not in the scope of SIPREC then we would ask for it to be taken to DISPATCH.

I don't see there is any issue here.

Regards
Andy





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale R. Worley [mailto:worley@ariadne.com]
> Sent: 10 February 2014 21:31
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com; Hutton, Andrew; Gerben.Stam@nice.com;
> dispatch@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Lossless Recording in SIPREC
> 
> > From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
> 
> > According to the [Dispatch] charter:
> >
> > The Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for
> > new work in the RAI area and identify, or help create, an appropriate
> > venue for the work.
> >
> > I would read this as a working group decision rather than a WG chairs
> decision.
> 
> It seems to me that "lossless recording" is well within the defined
> responsibilities (charter) of Siprec.  Siprec may decide that they
> ultimately need mechanisms that can only be defined by another WG,
> though...
> 
> Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email