Re: [Sip] mib-08

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

Completely agree with what you guys are saying and we should not be
expanding scope - it would just be good to get a few people to actually read
it to make sure it makes sense (in a WGLC is fine).


On 11/8/04 1:16 PM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree with Kevin. At this point in time we should not change the scope of
> the SIP MIB work, but rather focus on completing this phase of the work, in
> the framework already agreed. This does not mean that more eyes to read and
> comment on the MIB would do harm, quite the contrary - but changes should
> focus on fixing problems, not introducing new items.
> 
> After this phase is completed, the WG may be open to discussing possible
> extensions which can be introduced in supplementary SIP MIB modules.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
>> Behalf Of Kevin Lingle
>> Sent: 08 November, 2004 7:26 PM
>> To: Cullen Jennings
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Sip] mib-08
>> 
>> 
>> hi cullen,
>> 
>> we had a relatively small number of outstanding issues to
>> still resolve and were trying to get a -09 rev out a couple
>> of weeks back.  we didn't make that target because while working
>> the outstanding issues, we also tried to accommodate a request
>> to enhance user agent information.
>> 
>> i don't, think we should try and include that in the initial
>> offering of the user agent mib module.  i think jean-francois
>> is possibly in agreement with that now.  he was going to take
>> a crack at the issue but didn't have time yet.  thus we haven't
>> published rev -09 but hope to soon.  i don't have any time to
>> devote to the new issue of additional user agent information.
>> so i'd like to leave that for the future.
>> 
>> the delta's between -08 and -09 shouldn't be vast.... relative
>> to the deltas between -07 and -08 ;)   i think the "bunch of people"
>> you refer to should be the wglc reviewers.  i don't mind others
>> also reviewing, but i don't want this to become yet another wglc on
>> this draft (we've had two in as many years!).  we need to move the
>> I-D forward so we can get a RFC that can get some implementation
>> experience.
>> 
>> kevin
>> 
>> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>> I tired to read this whole thing again and it made my head
>> want to explode -
>>> I think getting a bunch of people to read it again would be
>> really good.
>>> There has been some nice work done on it since the previous rev.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



_______________________________________________
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