Re: [Sip] -RP-05.txt: section 7.1 and (rough) consensus debate

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 08:03 AM 11/17/2004 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
>In a message dated 11/16/2004 7:42:29 PM W. Europe Standard Time, 
>[e-mail] writes:
>> >[MAP] Since the document should say that it does not address interworking
>> >between namespaces, it should not contain this material.
>>
>>giving examples to clarify a known area of confusion is a good thing - and
>>will stay in the document.
>
>[MAP] The above results in a serious contradiction. You agree that the 
>document should not describe dependencies, then include material that 
>certainly describes dependencies (what combinations are and are not allowed).

Mike, pay attention to the ordering of two namespaces in the section - 
there are ZERO dependencies between namespaces, just that the order within 
each namespace MUST be maintained regardless of where one value from one 
namespace is places in relative priority order to one or more from another 
namespace. Implementors MUST have one order - no matter how many namespaces 
are supported at a server/endpoint - to relieve confusion of which is 
prioritized over or under another. This is the same rule that applies 
within a namespace: there MUST be one order of priority, period (No 
wildcards) to ensure interoperability.

>This will confuse more readers into thinking that there are some 
>dependencies.

Because it is confusing you does not mean it is confusing others. Every 
single coder I've talked to on this subject understands once they have seen 
these examples. That makes them worthy for inclusion.

>>it will not be deleted, though it might be modified to add or clarify 
>>meaning
>[MAP] It's too bad that you're taking the position that you have the final 
>say on what is and is not included in the document regardless of the 
>comments and results of any e-mail discussion.

This email discussion is from you, not from a rough consensus of the list.

>As far as I'm concerned, you must get the WG consensus

The IETF mantra is "rough consensus and running code"

You don't represent rough consensus - despite taking over the microphone 
last week

>  for anything that you added in -05 in order to retain it in -06.

Are you saying I cannot submit a document without getting consensus from 
the list?

>Contrary to what Jon Peterson stated at the meeting

Contrary to what an Area Director said to you in a meeting.... was that 
before or after you threatened the IETF with US Government force if the 
IETF didn't comply with your demands?  remember - about 15 people heard you 
do this

>, RFC2418 defines the responsibilities of the editor as follows:
>
>   Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of
>   documents, that capture the results of the group's work.  A working
>   group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor
>   for a particular document.  The Document Editor is responsible for
>   ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the
>   decisions that have been made by the working group.

If you feel this way, you have a right to complain to the WG chairs



>Mike


cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip