IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> (Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process.) to Best Current Practice

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 11 December 2015 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBCA1B2C6E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:17:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 klZX6s3mJIz6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 862E31B2C71 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tBBGHQ9Y038447 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:17:27 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> (Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process.) to Best Current Practice
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:17:26 -0600
Message-ID: <6B874634-8324-4EC4-BDE8-C14C213E3A91@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9E987A4-C33F-4945-B752-70EE60FC8CE1@shockey.us>
References: <20151208155640.29167.39623.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20151208205904.62770.qmail@ary.lan> <D9E987A4-C33F-4945-B752-70EE60FC8CE1@shockey.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5187)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/skq5vPtlCGzt6dGSbFY9-TFxz-M>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:17:37 -0000

On 8 Dec 2015, at 20:27, Richard Shockey wrote:

> That assumes that some of us believe that the RAI APP merger was a 
> good idea in the first place.
>
> I do not believe it was a good idea. And reality seems to confirm my 
> belief.

Richard, can you elaborate on what reality has confirmed? Is your 
concern related to things that would be different if the areas hadn't 
merged?

Ben.

[...]

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email