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

I think you got the point. I can't help it if you don't think it is an issue. 

We'll see if OMA come back or not to test if you are right or wrong.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: 01 November 2012 23:12
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Olle E. Johansson; Bernard Aboba; simple@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and... (new subject)
> 
> 
> 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
> >