Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed with the essential corrections to RFC 3261
gao.yang2@zte.com.cn Fri, 26 June 2009 02:12 UTC
Return-Path: <gao.yang2@zte.com.cn>
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 36E0E3A6AB1; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 FZZkGQL46vbz; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52BD3A6A99; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 111642001811080; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:24:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.18] by [10.30.17.100] with StormMail ESMTP id 59484.3950215940; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:34:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse1.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id n5Q0eGqe071367; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:40:16 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from gao.yang2@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <4A438271.2030909@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFC042B52A.F532759B-ON482575E1.00035503-C82575E1.0003ACAC@zte.com.cn>
From: gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:39:45 +0900
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2009-06-26 08:40:17, Serialize complete at 2009-06-26 08:40:17
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0003ACA9C82575E1_="
X-MAIL: mse1.zte.com.cn n5Q0eGqe071367
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>, sipcore-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed with the essential corrections to RFC 3261
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, 26 Jun 2009 02:12:58 -0000
Hi, As currently, correction of texts for RFC3261 are in different states, such as some in RFC states, some in WG draft states and others in Personal draft states. So, combination of the all may be a unmanageable work. Further, making the texts in RFC states into a new WG draft/RFC may make people confusing(especially for citation of such RFCs). So, I think making them separately might better. And I think we can using a new text as the list of the currently correlative active draft/RFCs. Then, people wanting to have a main view of RFC's correction can refer to that list. Thanks, Gao =================================== Zip : 210012 Tel : 87211 Tel2 :(+86)-025-52877211 e_mail : gao.yang2@zte.com.cn =================================== "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> 发件人: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org 2009-06-25 21:58 收件人 Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 抄送 SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org> 主题 Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed with the essential corrections to RFC 3261 Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: [...] > The concrete decision we have to make is whether it makes sense to merge > the following drafts in a batch, per the essential corrections process, > or whether we advance these drafts independently. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-03 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-sip-invfix-03 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00 > > We would appreciate the feedback of the WG on this issue so that we can > make progress updating RFC 3261. Gonzalo: I don't have a hard opinion one way or the other. That said, a quick analysis on the existing corpus of RFCs to see which RFC has been updated by the most number of RFCs reveals that rfc1035 has been updated by 20 RFCs (and rfc1035 is a standards track document), followed by rfc1034 (14 updates.) The next highest distribution bin from there clusters around 3-5 updates. So, if the past in the form of rfc1035 is any guide, then rfc3261 has a way to go, and we should be okay by having each individual document update rfc3261 independently. Or alternatively, you can advance the drafts that have been previously identified as part of the essential corrections process in a batch, but once that is done, revert back to the normal mode of operations -- each file updates the base RFC in its own manner. - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org} Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ _______________________________________________ sipcore mailing list sipcore@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
- Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed w… Vijay K. Gurbani
- [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed with … Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed w… Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed w… gao.yang2
- Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed w… gao.yang2
- [sipcore] [Fwd: Re: Re: Input requested on how to… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed w… Gonzalo Camarillo