Re: [Insipid] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs after IETF#88

Hello All,
I have submitted the draft below which describes a solution to the log me requirements and gives a few specific protocol options (the ones that were in clause 7 of the requirements draft reviewed in Vancouver) that could be used to code a log-me marker.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dawes-insipid-logme-solutions-00.txt

This draft has more protocol description than was previously in the requirements draft and tries to give a complete picture of what user agents and SIP proxies need to do to provide log-me marking. It would be good if I could present this solutions draft at IETF#89 for insipid to discuss.  

Rgds,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group 
Sent: 17 January 2014 05:22
To: 'James Polk'
Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) (keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com); insipid@ietf.org; Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei@cisco.com)
Subject: RE: [Insipid] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs after IETF#88

Thanks James, now submitted as draft-dawes-insipid-logme-reqs-00:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawes-insipid-logme-reqs/

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: insipid [mailto:insipid-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Polk
Sent: 16 January 2014 20:19
To: Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group
Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) (keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com); insipid@ietf.org; Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei@cisco.com)
Subject: Re: [Insipid] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs after IETF#88

Peter

To be blunt, if you seriously want this draft to be considered for INSIPID WG adoption you need to put "-insipid-" in the filename, and stop putting "-dispatch-" in the filename.

Linking the drafts is simple work for the chairs to do, if that's your concern.

James

At 11:31 AM 1/16/2014, Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group wrote:
>Hello All,
>Following up from IETF#88 I have uploaded a revised logme requirements 
>draft (version -04).
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs/
>
>As per the comments in Vancouver, version -04 does not include REQ9 
>regarding a logging server address and the related sub-clause 6.2.2.
>Also, clause 7 on potential solutions has been removed. These 
>requirements seem to be stable now.
>
>I will upload a related solutions draft by the end of next week (Friday
>24) at the latest and I hope we can discuss solution options here on 
>the list and then later on at IETF#89 at the beginning of March.
>
>Regards,
>Peter
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>insipid@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid

_______________________________________________
insipid mailing list
insipid@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid