Subject: [sipcore] Call for consensus: location conveyance

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:58:31 +0300

Folks,

we have the following milestone in our charter:

Aug 2009 - Location Conveyance with SIP to IESG (PS)

Does anybody object to adopting the following draft as the SIPCORE WG 
item for that milestone?

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13.txt

This draft was WGLCed in the SIP WG some time ago. The draft received a 
few comments that will need to be addressed before we can move this 
draft forward.

Cheers,

Gonzalo
SIPCORE co-chair

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:59:04 -0500

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13.txt

I object to the milestone. This isn't maintenance on the core SIP 
protocol. It ought to be in some other working group.

But if we're going to insist on doing it here, you might as well start 
with that document.

--
Dean

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:08:21 -0500

At 12:59 PM 6/22/2009, Dean Willis wrote:
>>Does anybody object to adopting the following draft as the SIPCORE 
>>WG item for that milestone?
>I object to the milestone. This isn't maintenance on the core SIP protocol.

neither is any of these:

>To: [email-masked],
>         [email-masked],
>         [email-masked],
>         [email-masked],
>         [email-masked],
>         [email-masked]

yet they are also in the SIPCORE WG - as legacy items that are 
supposed to be really close to getting done.  I believe once these 
are done, nothing else is to go into SIPCORE other than SIP 
maintenance stuff (like 3265bis).

>It ought to be in some other working group.

What WG do any of the above 6 IDs go into?

I'd argue that only Conveyance has a prayer of another WG, but that 
WG isn't up on all the SIP specific stuff (what's allowed in SIP 
headers or option tags or rules for insertion of information by 
intermediaries). This ID does nothing to the PIDF-LO, that Geopriv 
does know about, that this ID specifies how to carry.

I'd say nearly everyone that attends SIPCORE comes from SIP, 
therefore they have the (very long) history of this ID in mind.  I 
believe this -00 version is ready for the next and last WGLC, and 
nits can be fixed coming out of that review before this goes to the IESG.

The -00 is significantly easier to read, as that is the primary 
change from the SIP-13 version. I completely rewrote the Intro and 
Overview sections, cutting the Intro to 4 paragraphs. I added a few 
message flow figures to the Overview to aid that explanation.

>But if we're going to insist on doing it here, you might as well 
>start with that document.

boy, that's a reluctant endorsement... thanks!

James

>--
>Dean
>_______________________________________________
>sipcore mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:14:20 +0300

Hi Dean,

inline:

> protocol. It ought to be in some other working group.

we agreed on the milestones for the WG a long time ago. Here we are 
talking about adopting a particular draft for an already existing milestone.

> But if we're going to insist on doing it here, you might as well start 

yes, this is an answer to the question we were asking above. We had 
already announced (see link below) that we intended to use this draft 
for that milestone. We just wanted to confirm that people were OK with 
using that document.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg00004.html

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:21:01 -0500

>> protocol.
> yet they are also in the SIPCORE WG - as legacy items that are supposed 
> to be really close to getting done.  I believe once these are done, 
> nothing else is to go into SIPCORE other than SIP maintenance stuff 
> (like 3265bis).

Yep. That's the plan. I just don't like it very much. As a self 
appointed grouchy old man, it's my privilege to whine about it between 
flea-scratching sessions, and the fleas have been vicious this year so 
I'm way behind on my whining. I hope to do some catching-up this week.

--
Dean