Re: [sipcore] Milestone to revise RFC 3265

At the moment I have to answer NO to this consensus call for two reasons:

1)	Nothing in the proposal addresses the issue of why we are revising the RFC. Annex C of the initial draft contains a list of bugfixes that are addressed in the -00 version, but nothing in the request indicates whether that is the sole purpose of this revision, or whether other substantial changes, and more specifically enhancements can suddenly land on the WGs work programme once the work is adopted. So I would like to see statements that indicate the revision is to address issue problems with the existing RFC within the existing scope of operation, and if there are any enhancements intended then these are listed now and we obtain consensus on them.

2)	Nothing in the proposal addresses compatibility with the existing RFC. Dean is saying yes because he wants SIP 3.0. That is by definition incompatible with SIP 2.0 (the compatibility mechanism in this case is that if a response fails to appear for a 3.0 request the sender has to drop back to 2.0 operation). I am certainly not prepared to endorse a revision at this stage to produce a SIP 3.0 version of RFC 3265, and moreover, I require that where possible, the changes made are made in a fashion that maintains compatibility with implementations to the existing RFC 3265 (barring stuff that is completely broken of course).

I would note that I do not have a problem with a revision addressing issues currently listed in Annex C, so if we can revise the call to address my two point, I will be able to revise my answer to yes.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean Willis
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:48 PM
> To: Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: SIPCORE
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Milestone to revise RFC 3265
> 
> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> > Folks,
> > 
> > since the publication of RFC 3265, we have gotten significant 
> > experience deploying SIP-based notification systems. It has been 
> > proposed to revise RFC 3265 based on that experience. We 
> have two questions for the WG:
> > 
> > 1) should we add a milestone to our charter to revise RFC 3265?
> > 
> > 2) if we add such a milestone, should we take the following 
> draft as 
> > the initial WG item for the milestone?
> > 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-sipcore-rfc3265bis-00
> > 
> 
> I believe that RFC 3265 should be revised, and that SIPCORE 
> is the right place to do it. Of course, I feel the same about 
> 3261, 3262, 3263...
> 
> Adam's draft seems like a very good start.
> 
> --
> Dean
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 