IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] SIPCORE Location Conveyance -00 submitted

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Thu, 02 July 2009 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.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 07DEA3A6B94 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 5i95YNsUmR3x for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700223A6BA1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,336,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="208871851"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2009 17:28:04 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n62HS4ol005596; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:28:04 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n62HS43m003749; Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:28:04 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:28:04 -0700
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com ([10.21.73.89]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:28:03 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:28:02 -0500
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>, sipcore@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D00218BF89@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb 002.siemens.net>
References: <XFE-SJC-2126pkNzPZr0000321d@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D00218BF89@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-212zRL25AEx00004ba7@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2009 17:28:03.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[74844430:01C9FB3A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=543; t=1246555684; x=1247419684; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[sipcore]=20SIPCORE=20Location=20Convey ance=20-00=20submitted |Sender:=20; bh=FEX/HxAEz8Ol0DP9aW2jLXNgoXrHvPEIRVJCD/Ka/sA=; b=WzVlpF5w8i0CkPfU5dwgashahkZBETMoqUbhNzgwiit0SCGEFcYYqIyVhm HrrhsI79yt7Bz9ah2GyZncZuW4gfnDHgMGULriJZ+rcXFLOYvDT1KA5u3dwe qAq2TaHl+Z;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [sipcore] SIPCORE Location Conveyance -00 submitted
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, 02 Jul 2009 17:28:02 -0000

At 04:50 AM 7/2/2009, Elwell, John wrote:
> > - I toned down the 2119 text for servers inserting location into a
> > request from SHOULD NOT to not RECOMMENDED, based on WG comment.
>[JRE] Why does this constitute a toning down? I though SHOULD NOT and
>NOT RECOMMENDED were the same in RFC 2119. Can somebody please explain
>the subtle distinction?

I thought (think?) (NOT) RECOMMENDED doesn't need to be implemented, 
and SHOULD (NOT) does, for PS to DS movement.

I can change the text to "inadvisable"  otherwise


>John
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email