Re: [sipcore] IPv6 in the sip core wg

["Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>]

Works for me. 

BTW - I¹m perfectly fine if we want to be conservative and push the
milestone deadline out further, if that is desirable. If we get it done
prior, then all the better.

Gonzalo


On 12/10/13, 11:59 AM, "Paul Kyzivat" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>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)
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Paul -
>>
>>     On Dec 6, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>      >>
>>      >
>>      > _______________________________________________
>>      > sipcore mailing list
>>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     sipcore mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>sipcore mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore