On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
And, I do think your mega discussion is more appropriate for RAI
restructuring than on SIPPING. I think we have improved the expediency
of processing WG documents over the past few years and one of the
problems in the past was just too many active, chartered WG items at
one
time, which I think is one of the main points for the RAI
restructuring.
Fair enough. I'm not suggesting any particular flaw in SIPPING or SIP
working groups; rather that the entire SIP specification effort has
gone awry. This isn't a procedural problem or a question of which
working group to put given work into.
It's a much deeper question that really goes to "What should RAI be
working on, given that the thing we've been working on for the last
ten years is now apparently working us over instead?"
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
