IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below

"Samir Srivastava" <srivastava_samir@hush.com> Tue, 18 February 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <srivastava_samir@hush.com>
X-Original-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C961208D2 for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:00:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hush.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYE7cMUzawpM for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.hushmail.com (smtp2a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.237]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798231208CB for <v3@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AB256A024A for <v3@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-hush-tls-connected: 1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=hush.com; h=date:to:subject:from; s=hush; bh=hD70c4GaW4NsMxdyPGoq/dykt0RGdRAy9cleIe8JWXs=; b=va8j3WmLkodQOQ8Eb5kCYuiUB9EcwzNBtGSWwdwhAshWoP1tg2i3zghkh2z/OFT+cu0E1Wvwa50u1yO6L4xdjQu5ALKIGg2SmCjqne/gYi3Im9p/msgSK9jCeXa0CW5snfD3t51D2pjY18BotZirCP5cDqOiLQZJQi7oEzHbphfiwDBrHIPYm35RTB58hp/8tlyzvgrnPeF5i2cz9Ao6Wc850FL4L3GHmCeo4wSQY++ZA8gcxUBx0owbuqaAfTIf4CZhiRmy+NJs7FrpLB9RZUXyyp0WyIoJf51W7x7Axe2F22iva5RFjTqWsymEt/R6jW6ZoYZXUPRGdMeiNYR6MQ==
Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w9.hushmail.com [65.39.178.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp2.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 244EC200DE; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:00:43 +0600
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>, v3@ietf.org
From: Samir Srivastava <srivastava_samir@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d7c093f-45bb-f779-dcfc-1fce1b014611@usdonovans.com>
References: <BYAPR06MB43914433BF91CE216E6123A6FB150@BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <9d7c093f-45bb-f779-dcfc-1fce1b014611@usdonovans.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_12bc865f811856cd20fb1c1c7393187f"
Message-Id: <20200218160044.244EC200DE@smtp.hushmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v3/LgGPOo53V2th6g14aPp2qADIHT0>
Subject: Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below
X-BeenThere: v3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v3/>
List-Post: <mailto:v3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:00:47 -0000

In-line below.
ThanksSamir

On 2/18/2020 at 9:04 PM, "Steve Donovan"  wrote:                  
Jonathan, Cullen,
     For the following:
	"It is a non-goal of this working group to       replicate all of SIP
and its many extensions into HTTP. The group       will limit itself
to supporting the       functionality in widespread actual usage
today."     

	How do you envision defining the "functionality       that is in
widespread actual usage today?"     

	Do we need another working group deliverable to       define what of
existing SIP is in and what is out?     

	SS>> I am in agreement for defining SIP extensions in wide usage. 

	Thanks,     

	Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email