Re: [sipcore] Concluded: WGLC / Call for Adoption: REFER-related work

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I support having consistent terminology, and the suggested change seems very straight forward, so…

Regards,

Christer

From: Ivo Sedlacek
Sent: 23 March 2015 09:00
To: Adam Roach; Christer Holmberg; 'SIPCORE'; Brett Tate
Subject: RE: Concluded: WGLC / Call for Adoption: REFER-related work

Hello,

> The comment is strictly editorial (an area over which document editors are given significant latitude), and -- in my opinion -- is not an improvement.
> It says the same thing, with equivalent clarity, using more words.

Is there any definition of what "subscription requests (implicit or explicit)" are?

if no, then wording "requests that might create an (implicit or explicit) subscription" is more precise.

In any case, the wording ("request that might create a subscription") is used elsewhere in the document so change would make the text consistent.

Kind regards

Ivo Sedlacek

This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 20. března 2015 22:07
To: Ivo Sedlacek; Christer Holmberg; 'SIPCORE'; Brett Tate
Subject: Re: Concluded: WGLC / Call for Adoption: REFER-related work

[as document editor]

Thanks. I've seen the feedback, but don't currently plan to incorporate it. The comment is strictly editorial (an area over which document editors are given significant latitude), and -- in my opinion -- is not an improvement. It says the same thing, with equivalent clarity, using more words.

/a

On 3/19/15 01:36, Ivo Sedlacek wrote:
Hello,

my comment (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg06561.html) has not been addressed yet.

Kind regards

Ivo Sedlacek

This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
From: Christer Holmberg
Sent: 17. března 2015 18:25
To: Ivo Sedlacek; Adam Roach; 'SIPCORE'; Brett Tate
Subject: RE: Concluded: WGLC / Call for Adoption: REFER-related work

Hi,

What is the status of this? Has Ivo's comment been addressed?

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Ivo Sedlacek<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: ‎04/‎03/‎2015 10:11
To: Adam Roach<mailto:[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'SIPCORE'<mailto:[e-mail]>; Brett Tate<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Concluded: WGLC / Call for Adoption: REFER-related work

Hello,



I reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-03 and draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00  and found no issues. OK to progress those drafts.

I reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00 and sent a comment to the SIPCORE list yesterday (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg06561.html). I prefer the comment being addressed before progressing the draft.

Kind regards

Ivo Sedlacek



This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>



-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 28. února 2015 1:08
To: Christer Holmberg; 'SIPCORE'; Ivo Sedlacek; Brett Tate
Subject: Concluded: WGLC / Call for Adoption: REFER-related work



[as chair]



The adoption and WGLC period for the three documents has ended. Given the expressed support (meager as it was) and lack of objection, we're going to consider the 6665-clarifications draft adopted.



There were no additional comments on refer-clarifications or refer-explicit-subscription, so we will begin preparing them for IESG review.



[as author]



A new version that I believe addresses the outstanding comments on the

6665 clarification document is available here:



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification/



Ivo / Brett: as you were the people who provided the feedback that I've incorporated, please look over this latest text to let me know whether it addresses the specific concern that had been raised. Thanks!



/a