Re: [sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed with the essential corrections to RFC 3261

Gonzalo,

We have agreed on the issue of co-author. But from the mail, you just 
mentioned "draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00" as correction of RFC3261.

I'd like to confirm:

whether you want making your two 
drafts("draft-camarillo-sipping-precons-00" and 
"draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00") and 
mine("draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-criterion-03") as one or making 
"draft-camarillo-sipping-precons-00" and 
"draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-criterion-03" as one, 
"draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00" separately.

I think making them a whole is better for the correlation of the two 
topics. It is just my suggestion, you can decide independently.

Thanks,

Gao.

===================================
 Zip    : 210012
 Tel    : 87211
 Tel2   :(+86)-025-52877211
 e_mail : gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
===================================

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 
发件人:  sipcore-bounces@ietf.org
2009-06-25 13:55

收件人
SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
抄送

主题
[sipcore] Input requested on how to proceed with the essential corrections 
to RFC 3261

Folks,

as you can see in our charter, we have the following milestone:

Sep 2009 - Essential corrections to RFC 3261 (1st batch) to IESG (PS)

The reason why the milestone talks about the "first batch" can be found 
in the following draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drage-sip-essential-correction-03

The draft above talks about RFCs that are updated by tens of RFCs. The 
draft claims that having a lot of RFCs updating a given RFC would be 
confusing for implementers. At the time of writing the draft above, 
there was a belief that RFC 3261 was going to be an example of an RFC 
updated by tens of RFCs. The idea in the draft is that instead of 
issuing a number of RFCs updating the original one, the WG would put all 
those updates together into a batch and publish the batch as a single RFC.

Analyzing the current situation, RFC 3261 has already been updated by 
the following RFCs: 3265, 3853, 4320, 4916, 5393

Additionally, there are a few drafts that will, if approved, update RFC 
3261 as well:

Draft already with the IESG:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-06

Draft that could be included in the essential corrections process when 
their contents are approved:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-03
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-sip-invfix-03
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00

It turns out that the total number of RFCs updating RFC 3261 has not 
grown as much as expected. The number of RFCs documenting essential 
corrections (a subset of all the RFCs updating RFC 3261) is also lower 
than expected. (From Section 3 of the essential corrections draft, an 
essential change is one where in the absence of the correction, it will 
not be possible to implement the specification contained in the original 
RFC in a manner to ensure interoperability or correct operation.)

The general decision we have to make at this point, given the small 
number of drafts documenting essential corrections, is whether we want 
to document essential corrections in batches, per the essential 
corrections process, or in individual drafts, as it has been done in the 
past.

The concrete decision we have to make is whether it makes sense to merge 
the following drafts in a batch, per the essential corrections process, 
or whether we advance these drafts independently.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-03
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sparks-sip-invfix-03
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00

We would appreciate the feedback of the WG on this issue so that we can 
make progress updating RFC 3261.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
SIPCORE co-chair

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
sipcore@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.