Re: [sipcore] IPv6 in the sip core wg

No, that implies that 3263 and 6157 are wrong and products that implement need to change - If you want that milestone, first you need to be able be clear about what is wrong with 3263 or 6157.  How about 

> June 2014  Request publication of procedures for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs

On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> It's really quite silly that we're blocked on a trivial matter of terminology here. Grabbing my thesaurus, I suggest:
> 
>     June 2014  Request publication of procedures to amend RFC3263
>     and RFC6157 for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs
>     containing domain names (PS)
> 
> Does that work for everyone?
> 
> /a
> 
> On 12/18/13 11:12, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 12/17/13 6:54 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>> I said in a previous mail that I would like to avoid the use of the word "supplement" and did suggest alternative wording. My reason is that some SDOs treat the word "supplement" as identifying informative material, and given that you want reuse in other SDOs it is best not to confuse the issue.
>> 
>> I don't see why that should prevent us from using "supplement" in this context. We can have that discussion again if the word is used in a draft, but I don't see why it's a concern there either. (The definitive indication is whether the RFC is standards track, and the normative language in the draft.)
>> 
>>> In any case I don't think we need to bring out in either the title or the milestone the exact relationship with RFC 3263, only that one exists. Defining that relationship more accurately belongs to the abstract.
>> 
>> My latest proposal was:
>> 
>>     June 2014  Request publication of procedures to supplement RFC3263
>>     and RFC6157 for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs
>>     containing domain names (PS)
>> 
>> Your earlier proposal was: "Use of RFC 3263 in dual-stack devices".
>> 
>> RFC6157 already addresses dual-stack devices. What we are trying to deal with is that 3263 and 6157 are insufficient and/or wrong for dual-stack clients. I see no way to avoid using *some* verb - supplement, update, clarify, expand, ...
>> 
>> Feel free to offer something that addresses both your concerns and the others that have been raised.
>> 
>>    Thanks,
>>    Paul
>> 
>> 
>>> Keith
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
>>>> Sent: 16 December 2013 20:01
>>>> To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>>>> Cc: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei); DRAGE, Keith (Keith);
>>>> SIPCORE WG; Olle E. Johansson
>>>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] IPv6 in the sip core wg
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/16/13 2:33 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Paul Kyzivat
>>>> <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Having said that, I suggest the following as the milestone:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>     May 2014  WGLC of procedures to supplement RFC3263 for
>>>> dual-stack
>>>>>>     client and server handling of SIP URIs containing domain names
>>>>>> (PS)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Good with me. And if you want to change "WGLC of" to
>>>> "Request publication of" that seems like it would fix the
>>>> point Mary raised.
>>>> 
>>>> OK. Latest candidate is:
>>>> 
>>>>      June 2014  Request publication of procedures to
>>>> supplement RFC3263
>>>>      for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs containing
>>>>      domain names (PS)
>>>> 
>>>> (I put back the extra month for Mary.)
>>>> 
>>>> Richard - does this work for you?
>>>> 
>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>    Paul
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> sipcore@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 