IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: draft-holmberg-sip-keep

Bob Penfield <BPenfield@acmepacket.com> Fri, 17 April 2009 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <BPenfield@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7123A6D34 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXvd8wo+rHtt for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75BC3A6A68 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:05 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:05 -0400
From: Bob Penfield <BPenfield@acmepacket.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:04 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Thread-Index: Acm+62pmy5HoS0p8T2qmy3tNmBNOgwABW66A
Message-ID: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC3151644FA8F@mail>
References: <49E7BF9D.10706@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <49E7BF9D.10706@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC3151644FA8Fmail_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: draft-holmberg-sip-keep
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:08:53 -0000

yes

________________________________
From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:31 PM
To: SIPCORE
Subject: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: draft-holmberg-sip-keep

[as chair]

There was already a request for consensus around adopting the document draft-holmberg-sip-keep on the SIP working group mailing list. The call was for adopting it "as a WG document in RAI (WG tbd)". The specific call for consensus can be found here:

  <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg27141.html><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg27141.html>

There were 15 messages in support of doing so, and no objections.

I'm asking a related but slightly different question: Given that SIPCORE has a charter milestone for "Mechanism for indicating support for keep-alives," do you think we should adopt draft-holmberg-sip-keep as the basis for completing this milestone? As before, a simple "yes" is fine; however, if you don't think we should adopt this document, please provide rationale.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email