Re: [Sip] Another Revised agenda for SIP et IETF 64

On Nov 4, 2005, at 2:12 AM, DENG, HUI -HCHBJ wrote:

>
> We are also not familiar with AD-sponsored document, does that means
> this document could become independent document out of any working  
> group?
> excuse us naive question.
>

It's a procedure defined in RFC 3932, which modifies the procedure of  
RFC 2026. It allows for ADs to sponsor informational documents that  
are not in the scope of a specific working group, get the mIESG  
reviewed, and published as RFCs. It's preferred over direct-to-RFC-ed  
individual informationals because there is still IESG review over  
these documents and an opportunity for public debate that is not  
inherent with the direct-to-RFCed process of RFC 2026.

>> I'd do one Informational document that is AD sponsored, a non-SIP  
>> Informational,
>> similar in content to draft-torvinen-http-digest-aka-v2-02.txt,  
>> which was
>> independent and AD-sponsored, and which is about to come out as  
>> RFC 4169.
> Here may I ask one question, since there are on IPR statement about  
> it:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=591
> In this case, this draft still can become an informational RFC?

While the IETF generally prefers approaches that are not IPR  
encumbered, the presence of an IPR claim does not generally prevent  
publication as an informational document.

--
Dean Willis
SIP co-chair

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip