Re: [sipcore] IPv6 in the sip core wg

Gonzalo,

Mary made the comment on schedule before I got the chance. :-)

June is between the London meeting and the Toronto meeting. Its a 
reasonable time if we we have substantial agreement coming out of the 
London meeting. If we need another meeting cycle, then of course it will 
take longer.

I don't yet have a sense how much controversy and debate there might be 
on this subject. For now I'm ok with a June date. (They don't hang us 
for missing dates.)

So does the following work for you?

     June 2014  Updated procedures for dual-stack server handling of SIP
     URIs containing domain names

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 12/10/13 10:19 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
> <gsalguei@cisco.com <mailto:gsalguei@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     Paul -
>
>     On Dec 6, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
>     <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>      > Olle,
>      >
>      > Yes, this is something it seems evident we should take on.
>      > I don't believe we need to change the "charter", but we should
>     add a milestone for this.
>      >
>      > If you would like to propose milestone text (in the same style as
>     the existing milestones) and take a first guess at a date for it,
>     that would be great.
>
>     How about:
>
>     Apr 2014  Amended procedures for dual-stack server handling of SIP
>     URIs containing domain names
>
> [MB] I would suggest to just use the term "Updated" as opposed to "Amended".
> While all of our dates are always optimistic, I think June 2014 is
> probably beyond the usually level of optimism, since that's the date for
> the doc to go to the IESG.   It often takes at least 2 months to get a
> doc from WGLC to ready for IESG review.  That would mean the document
> completes WGLC in February 2014.  If you think that's possible, then
> April is fine, but I would anticipate that it could take a tad longer.
> [/MB]
>
>
>      >
>      > Now that we have this, and some other things, that are on the
>     table we are planning on having a sipcore session in London. This
>     will be one (or more) of the agenda items for that meeting.
>
>     Sounds good.
>
>     Gonzalo
>
>      >
>      >       Thanks,
>      >       Paul
>      >
>      > On 12/6/13 8:20 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>      >> Hi!
>      >>
>      >> Coming back to an earlier discussion, it seemed to me that we
>     had a few people that supported adding IPv6 dual stack issues to the
>     charter of this wg - if it's not in there already.
>      >>
>      >> I would like to propose that we add this to the charter and that
>     we plan a meeting at the IETF in London to discuss this and happy
>     eyeballs issues.
>      >>
>      >> We have two drafts in the pipeline and one that should have been
>     written about the actual happy eyeballs connection setup, but
>     currently only exists as promiseware...
>      >>
>      >> /O
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> sipcore mailing list
>      >> sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
>      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>      >>
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > sipcore mailing list
>      > sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     sipcore mailing list
>     sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>
>