Re: [sipcore] IPv6 in the sip core wg

It's really quite silly that we're blocked on a trivial matter of 
terminology here. Grabbing my thesaurus, I suggest:

      June 2014  Request publication of procedures to amend RFC3263
      and RFC6157 for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs
      containing domain names (PS)

Does that work for everyone?

/a

On 12/18/13 11:12, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 12/17/13 6:54 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> I said in a previous mail that I would like to avoid the use of the 
>> word "supplement" and did suggest alternative wording. My reason is 
>> that some SDOs treat the word "supplement" as identifying informative 
>> material, and given that you want reuse in other SDOs it is best not 
>> to confuse the issue.
>
> I don't see why that should prevent us from using "supplement" in this 
> context. We can have that discussion again if the word is used in a 
> draft, but I don't see why it's a concern there either. (The 
> definitive indication is whether the RFC is standards track, and the 
> normative language in the draft.)
>
>> In any case I don't think we need to bring out in either the title or 
>> the milestone the exact relationship with RFC 3263, only that one 
>> exists. Defining that relationship more accurately belongs to the 
>> abstract.
>
> My latest proposal was:
>
>      June 2014  Request publication of procedures to supplement RFC3263
>      and RFC6157 for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs
>      containing domain names (PS)
>
> Your earlier proposal was: "Use of RFC 3263 in dual-stack devices".
>
> RFC6157 already addresses dual-stack devices. What we are trying to 
> deal with is that 3263 and 6157 are insufficient and/or wrong for 
> dual-stack clients. I see no way to avoid using *some* verb - 
> supplement, update, clarify, expand, ...
>
> Feel free to offer something that addresses both your concerns and the 
> others that have been raised.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
>
>> Keith
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
>>> Sent: 16 December 2013 20:01
>>> To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>>> Cc: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei); DRAGE, Keith (Keith);
>>> SIPCORE WG; Olle E. Johansson
>>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] IPv6 in the sip core wg
>>>
>>> On 12/16/13 2:33 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Paul Kyzivat
>>> <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, I suggest the following as the milestone:
>>>>>
>>>>>      May 2014  WGLC of procedures to supplement RFC3263 for
>>> dual-stack
>>>>>      client and server handling of SIP URIs containing domain names
>>>>> (PS)
>>>>
>>>> Good with me. And if you want to change "WGLC of" to
>>> "Request publication of" that seems like it would fix the
>>> point Mary raised.
>>>
>>> OK. Latest candidate is:
>>>
>>>       June 2014  Request publication of procedures to
>>> supplement RFC3263
>>>       for dual-stack client and server handling of SIP URIs containing
>>>       domain names (PS)
>>>
>>> (I put back the extra month for Mary.)
>>>
>>> Richard - does this work for you?
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore