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

> -----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.

-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

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://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