IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sipcore] Call for Consensus: draft-holmberg-sip-keep

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 April 2009 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 D93283A6990 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
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 6f7Pk1EVEOjg for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C7D3A67C0 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.231] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3GNUbk9031014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:30:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <49E7BF9D.10706@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:30:37 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 1.0b11 (Macintosh/2009041423)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040506050307050809080206"
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: draft-holmberg-sip-keep
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:29:29 -0000

[as chair]

There was already a request for consensus around adopting the document 
draft-holmberg-sip-keep on the SIP working group mailing list. The call 
was for adopting it "as a WG document in RAI (WG tbd)". The specific 
call for consensus can be found here:

<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg27141.html>

There were 15 messages in support of doing so, and no objections.

I'm asking a related but slightly different question: Given that SIPCORE 
has a charter milestone for "Mechanism for indicating support for 
keep-alives," do you think we should adopt draft-holmberg-sip-keep as 
the basis for completing this milestone? As before, a simple "yes" is 
fine; however, if you don't think we should adopt this document, please 
provide rationale.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email