Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location conveyance

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 22 June 2009 19:08 UTC

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:08:21 -0500
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A3FC668.4040405@softarmor.com>
References: <4A3E74C7.9050403@ericsson.com> <4A3FC668.4040405@softarmor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-212rK0pWHIt0000277a@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com>
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location conveyance
Precedence: list

At 12:59 PM 6/22/2009, Dean Willis wrote:
>Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>Folks,
>>we have the following milestone in our charter:
>>Aug 2009 - Location Conveyance with SIP to IESG (PS)
>>Does anybody object to adopting the following draft as the SIPCORE 
>>WG item for that milestone?
>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13.txt
>
>I object to the milestone. This isn't maintenance on the core SIP protocol.

neither is any of these:

>To: draft-ietf-sip-199@tools.ietf.org,
>         draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance@tools.ietf.org,
>         draft-ietf-sip-sec-flows@tools.ietf.org,
>         draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements@tools.ietf.org,
>         draft-ietf-sip-info-events@tools.ietf.org,
>         draft-ietf-sipcore-subnot-etags@tools.ietf.org

yet they are also in the SIPCORE WG - as legacy items that are 
supposed to be really close to getting done.  I believe once these 
are done, nothing else is to go into SIPCORE other than SIP 
maintenance stuff (like 3265bis).

>It ought to be in some other working group.

What WG do any of the above 6 IDs go into?

I'd argue that only Conveyance has a prayer of another WG, but that 
WG isn't up on all the SIP specific stuff (what's allowed in SIP 
headers or option tags or rules for insertion of information by 
intermediaries). This ID does nothing to the PIDF-LO, that Geopriv 
does know about, that this ID specifies how to carry.

I'd say nearly everyone that attends SIPCORE comes from SIP, 
therefore they have the (very long) history of this ID in mind.  I 
believe this -00 version is ready for the next and last WGLC, and 
nits can be fixed coming out of that review before this goes to the IESG.

The -00 is significantly easier to read, as that is the primary 
change from the SIP-13 version. I completely rewrote the Intro and 
Overview sections, cutting the Intro to 4 paragraphs. I added a few 
message flow figures to the Overview to aid that explanation.

>But if we're going to insist on doing it here, you might as well 
>start with that document.

boy, that's a reluctant endorsement... thanks!

James

>--
>Dean
>_______________________________________________
>sipcore mailing list
>sipcore@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

[sipcore] Call for consensus: location conveyance Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location convey… Dean Willis
Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location convey… James M. Polk
Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location convey… Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location convey… Dean Willis