Hi,
>>> Certainly there is no problem with continuing to discuss that.
>>> But I didn't see any reason to mention it in this draft any longer.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be good to still describe the problem, but maybe indicate that the solution is outside the scope of
>>the document?
>
>IMO, such a statement in an RFC tends to get stale with time.
>
>What do others think? Do you want this document to go to RFC containing
>statements of work we might want to do in the future?
In my experience it is not unusual to state that something is outside the scope of a document.
We don't need to say what may, and may not, be done in the future, simply say that it is outside the scope of THIS document.
Regards,
Christer
Thanks,
Paul
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The rejecting PRACK offer is still "ongoing", but unfortuantely I have not had time to do much onit lately - mostly due to INFO.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat [pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 7:48 PM
>> To: sipping-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: sipping
>> Subject: [Sipping] New version posted: draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt
>>
>> I just posted a new version of the offeranswer draft.
>> This version is intended to resolve all outstanding issues.
>>
>> Here is a summary of substantial changes made:
>>
>> - the open issues that were previously in section 6 were
>> removed. The doc has been updated as needed to be consistent
>> with conclusions about how to deal with those issues.
>> Specifically:
>>
>> - Rejecting PRACK offer has simply been dropped.
>> There has been no ongoing interest in no normative work
>> to support doing that.
>>
>> - Commit/Rollback of Offer/Answer on Unsuccessful re-INVITE
>> Transaction has been resolved by reference to
>> draft-camarillo-sipcore-reinvite-01. New text referencing
>> that has been added at multiple places in the document.
>>
>> - Loosening requirement for Offer in a Reliable Response:
>> Again there has been no indication of intent to do anything
>> in this space, so the topic has simply been dropped.
>>
>> - Requesting Hold while already on Hold:
>> This was already addressed in the main body of the document.
>> The issue was whether this was appropriate, since it rests on
>> the interpretation of certain text in 3261 being non-normative.
>> That assumption has been restated in the main body.
>> I'm unaware of any argument to that in over two years.
>>
>> - The recommendations for addition of new o/a usage in sip
>> (prior section 7) has also been dropped. While these may have
>> been helpful during discussion of the draft, they aren't
>> helpful after it is finalized.
>>
>> - I rearranged the order of authors since Takuya has been unavailable
>> to work on it for some time. However I have retained him as an author
>> because the preponderance of the text is still his.
>>
>> In addition there hare assorted miscellaneous minor cleanups.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> Internet-Draft@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> New version (-11) has been submitted for draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt.
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt
>>> Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
>>>
>>> Diff from previous version:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11
>>>
>>> IETF Secretariat.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
