Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and... (new subject)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 01 November 2012 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551C221F97FA for <simple@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UzRueLbmPs0z for <simple@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A798821F96F7 for <simple@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qA1NCGu8036701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Nov 2012 18:12:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8901840E-9C96-4555-813B-5900B2532796@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:12:16 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C5ED210-3C72-4D6A-84A2-50A8229D4C91@nostrum.com>
References: <axjp925efdvel8fmpey6jc73.1351800528451@email.android.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE202D2F6F713@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <8901840E-9C96-4555-813B-5900B2532796@nostrum.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, " simple@ietf.org" <simple@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and... (new subject)
X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions <simple.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple>
List-Post: <mailto:simple@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:12:30 -0000

On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:00 PM, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> 
>> So I guess that IETF has therefore abandoned RFC 5727.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how "abandoning 5727" follows from "no liaison manager for OMA". I'm not getting it; can you elaborate?
> 
>> 
>> OMA last asked for 6 header fields to be registered. As far as I understand they were told they needed a standards track RFC to do this. Identifying no need for cooperation tells me that IETF is quite happy they have their own version of the SIP specification.
>> 
> 
> I don't think choosing not to assign a liaison manager implies we expect no cooperation. You don't need an IETF assigned liaison manager to someone bring a draft to the IETF, do you?

Okay, that was a cut-paste disaster. s/ "to someone bring" / "for someone to bring"

> 
>> Keith
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net]
>>> Sent: 01 November 2012 20:09
>>> To: Ben Campbell
>>> Cc: Olle E. Johansson; Bernard Aboba; DRAGE, Keith (Keith);
>>> simple@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and... (new subject)
>>> 
>>> Murray was the liaison person to the OMA from the IETF side. Murray
>>> recently discontinued his participation in the OMA (due to a job change).
>>> We discussed the need to appoint a new liaison person in the IAB and came
>>> to the conclusion that no new appointment is necessary; the required need
>>> to interact with the OMA had decreased over time.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone on this list believe that there is a need for cooperation with
>>> the OMA?
>>> 
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>> 
>>> Sent from my ASUS Pad
>>> 
>>> Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:20 PM, "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> What is the current relationship betwen OMA and the IETF? ANy
>>> cooperation, like between 3Gpp and the IETF?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> There is a liaison, but I don't think it's been very active for a while
>>> now.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Simple mailing list
>>>> Simple@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>