Re: [sipcore] draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network-07.txt

<As chair>
This message starts a two week call for adoption of the draft, with the intention that it will be reworked as needed and re-named to rfc7976bis.  Please send comments to the list.

Roland, assuming the WG agrees to adopt the draft, we will ask you to submit it as draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-00.  We will also ask you to make sure that the errata identified in 7976 are addressed.  The data tracker will note the prior versions correctly once we set it up.

Brian

> On Dec 29, 2023, at 4:17 AM, R.Jesske@telekom.de wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> I have uploaded a new version.
>  
> URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network-07.txt
> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network/
> HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network
> Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network-07
>  
> Of course comments are welcome.
>  
> The main change to the RFC7976 is that P-Visited-Network-ID header field can appear in all responses except for 100 (Trying).
>  
> As commented during the WGLC it was proposed to change the behaviour from UPDATE to an BIS draft.
>  
> Since there are no objections from people could I get some advice from the SIPCORE chair if I can now create an sipcore RFC7976bis draft, to start the official procedure to go forward to an RFC or is there another procedure seen?
>  
> Thank you and Best Regards
>  
> Roland
>  
> Von: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 3. November 2023 16:08
> An: Jesske, Roland <R.Jesske@telekom.de <mailto:R.Jesske@telekom.de>>
> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
> Betreff: Re: [sipcore] Working Group Last Call draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network-03.txt
>  
> Hi Roland, 
>  
> Not hearing any objections, that seems a good way to proceed.
>  
> Cheers,
> Charles
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:03 AM, R.Jesske@telekom.de <mailto:R.Jesske@telekom.de> wrote:
>  
> Hi Charles,
> Thank you for binging this up.
> It was the proposal to change then the naming to an rfc7976_bis and I have provided an Update https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network/ in Summer to use the RFC7976 as baseline.
>  
> The proposal was discussed to change it to an rfc7976_bis and I saw some agreement but not a final decision.
>  
> If people are happy with that approach then I recheck the draft and could provide this draft as an bis draft.
>  
> Best Regards
>  
> Roland
> Von: sipcore <sipcore-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org>> Im Auftrag von Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. Oktober 2023 23:41
> An: sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
> Betreff: Re: [sipcore] Working Group Last Call draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network-03.txt
>  
> Apologies for reviving an old thread, but draft-jesske-update-p-visited-network came up in our dependencies discussion during the IETF-3GPP coordination call today [1] and I wanted to check on next steps.
>  
> We are putting together the agenda for the IETF-3GPP coordination meeting at IETF 118 and could allocate some time for a discussion on this draft in that forum if it would be helpful.
>  
> Cheers,
> Charles
>  
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/iabasg/ietf3gpp/meetings/
>  
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore