Re: [sipcore] Difference between Sipcore and Sip
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 06:39 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 A691E3A69C0 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.973
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.776, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 jTG1fWSeCuOu for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15FC3A67FD for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oA76dUoe004598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 7 Nov 2010 07:39:30 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.44]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 07:39:30 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: 孙振华 <sunerok@hotmail.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 07:39:27 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Difference between Sipcore and Sip
Thread-Index: Act+RZNhCdlmrTSTQC6YJdRXbrkMWgAAJ67A
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE2198FF8C6@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <BLU112-W1426A0828240D8D97367F2B44E0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU112-W1426A0828240D8D97367F2B44E0@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Difference between Sipcore and Sip
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: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 06:39:16 -0000
The SIP working group is formally closed. There are still a few SIP WG drafts going through IESG but no new work is being conducted. The mailing list remains open, but it is primarily open to cover any discussions on those working group drafts with IESG. Do note that the scope of SIPCORE is different from what SIP used to be. So in proposing any work, please look at the charters of SIPCORE and DISPATCH to decide which is the most suitable. regards Keith ________________________________ From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 6:31 AM To: sipcore@ietf.org Subject: [sipcore] Difference between Sipcore and Sip Is Sip WG is still underwork ? Or is there any difference about the work in Sip WG and SipCore WG?
- [sipcore] Difference between Sipcore and Sip 孙振华
- Re: [sipcore] Difference between Sipcore and Sip DRAGE, Keith (Keith)