RE: [Sip] Last Call comments on 2543bis-07

Brian,

As I understand the procedures and concerns, a normative
references to draft-tsvarea-sipchange would hold
bis in the RFC Editor's queue, which would delay the actual
publication of bis as an RFC.  It would not delay the assigning 
of an RFC number, which is what 3GPP wants on March 7.

I'm not at all clear on how the RFC Editor will handle
non-normative references to internet-drafts, like [30]
SIP telephony call flow examples.  If publication as an
RFC "freezes" the text, then they may hold it in the queue
for this, too.  But again, it won't delay the assignment
of an RFC number for 3GPP.

The specific text in bis-07 leading to this discussion is
regarding option tags that MUST be defined in standards-
track RFCs.  There is no reason that needs to be a normative
reference.  It actually falls into the category of "untestable"
uses of spec language.  It would best be left out.

Bill Marshall
wtm@research.att.com

-----original message-----
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com>
To: "'Robert Sparks'" <rsparks@dynamicsoft.com>,
        William Marshall <wtm@research.att.com>
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sip] Last Call comments on 2543bis-07
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:32:03 -0500 

> > 2) Carriers are unfortunately obliged to meet regulatory 
> requirements.
> > At least some of these, related to Electronic Surveillance, will not
> > be standardized by IETF (see RFC 2804), though publication is 
> > encouraged (presumably as informational RFCs).  However, 
> they may require
> > extensions to SIP, and definition of additional headers and 
> option tags.  
> > It would be unfortunate if this resulting protocol could 
> not be called 
> > SIP.  This is an ugly subject, granted, and I do not want 
> it to delay 
> > publication of bis as an RFC.  My proposed resolution of this is
> > to have bis make reference to draft-tsvarea-sipchange-xx for the
> > guidelines of extensions being standard-track RFCs, and have the 
> > discussion when that draft is re-issued and last-called.
> > Affects lines 1094-7, 1103-4, 1306-7
> 
> 
> I'll let the chairs comment on this.
> 
This chair wouldn't allow bis to be held because of a normative reference
to tsvarea-sipchange, but wouldn't object if that was not a problem.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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