Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization-00

"Mary Barnes" <> Fri, 12 June 2009 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367653A6897; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WHwGXKm7o94h; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBDA3A6862; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n5CKp9121134; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:51:09 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:54:30 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization-00
Thread-Index: AcnrlRbDZvGjDVZ5TPir0s0fgoUX3gACCmqg
References: <1241379400.3528.50.camel@scott> <> <>
From: "Mary Barnes" <>
To: "Dale Worley" <>
Cc: SIP Operations <>, RAI DISPATCH <>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Operations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:52:25 -0000

Correct - we are not discussing solutions because we don't develop
solutions in DISPATCH.  
The idea in DISPATCH if folks agree that there is a problem, is to then
determine the scope of the problem to be solved - that's not been
entirely concluded for this topic. If that can happen on the ML prior to
Stockholm, then certainly no f2f time is needed - really the ideal
operation of DISPATCH is that we don't need f2f time - i.e., work comes
in, we figure out the scope of the problem, whether there is critical
mass in the WG in terms of contributing to the work and then figure out
whether we need a new WG, a BoF, an individual/AD doc, etc.  

At this point, for this topic, there has not yet been a critical mass in
terms of feedback on the proposal - that's what we're asking for now.
Basically, we are still dealing with the "...what part or parts of that
problem need to be solved" aspect of this topic.  If we don't get more
input it is highly unlikely that any progress could be made on this
topic in Stockholm, which would put us at the point that you are
suggesting we are now in terms of having nothing to discuss. That was
the implication of my "However...".  I'll be more blunt next time. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:37 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: RAI DISPATCH; SIP Operations
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization-00

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 08:47 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:
> There seems to be sufficient interest in this topic to warrant f2f 
> agenda time in Stockholm. However, additional feedback prior to 
> IETF-75 is necessary to ensure that progress can be made in Stockholm.

It looks like a good description of the problem.  Since the I-D is not
to discuss solutions, I'm not sure what there is to discuss until we
open the discussion to solutions.