IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@lmf.ericsson.se> Wed, 19 September 2001 09:25 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27445 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA27804; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 04:24:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA27773 for <sip@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 04:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [194.237.142.110]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26725 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 04:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fogerty.lmf.ericsson.se (fogerty.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.11.6]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.10.1/WIREfire-1.3) with ESMTP id f8J8OAv16952; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:24:11 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from lmf.ericsson.se (E005004B52C74-udp26677.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.30.111]) by fogerty.lmf.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f8J8OAb19340; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:24:10 +0300 (EET DST)
Message-ID: <3BA85628.C703DC69@lmf.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:24:08 +0300
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@lmf.ericsson.se>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
CC: "'sip@ietf.org'" <sip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork
References: <B65B4F8437968F488A01A940B21982BF020D68B8@DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------8D80876081813EECDAF7F7BB"
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org

Hi,

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@lmf.ericsson.se]
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 1:08 AM
> > To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> > Cc: 'sip@ietf.org'
> > Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork
> >
> >
> > So, the following proposal came up when I read the manyfolks
> > draft: why
> > not always, in every SIP extension draft, include a chapter how the
> > specific extension/feature works in a working environment.
> > That way, if
> > the author takes that into consideration from the beginning, we don't
> > have to start thinking of it 6 months later when the draft is supposed
> > to go for last call... And, if someone comes up with something, but it
> > does NOT work in a forking environment, it should at least be
> > mentioned
> > that it doesn't work in a forking environment. It will then
> > be easier to
> > decide if it's worth making a WG item in the first place.
> 
>This is done already. Section 5 of draft-ietf-sip-guidelines mentions
>interactions with existing features, and forking is listed.

Correct. However, it's not enough if it is in the guidelines, we also
have to make sure it really IS included in the extension drafts when
needed.

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland



> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> ---
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
> Chief Scientist                             First Floor
> dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
> jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email