Re: [sipcore] Proposal: Call for adoption & WGLC: draft-roach-sipcore-priority-00

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 11/12/12 16:46, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> It might also be appropriate to answer the points I made in response, rather than just repeating the demand.

Are you meaning to indicate the question of whether this document 
updates 3261? That seems to be the only point of contention you've 
raised, and I've heard scant support for your position on that topic.

By way of contrast, Paul, Ben, Robert and I -- the only others who have 
engaged on this rather esoteric bit of IETF arcana -- have all stated 
what *I* believe are lucid and defensible reasons that this draft is 
required to update 3261. I'm certainly willing to consider the 
conversation to be ongoing, if there are new points to be made. 
Otherwise, this is clearly a non-technical matter of opinion about which 
people seem to have already reached their own conclusions, and the 
preponderance of the expressed opinion seems to put you in a minority 
class of size one.

/a