Re: [Sip] Late Milestones (was Re: Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72)

["DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

RFC 3427 placed location conveyance correctly in SIP.

There was a requirements exercise outside SIP, which preceded it, which
apparently some key players did not buy into. But not buying into the
requirements documents at the time they were written is apparently a
general GEOPRIV problem.

The semantic of the current GEOPRIV draft should have been written into
the location conveyance requirements draft before it was endorsed by the
working group that produced it. Then we would not have had this
continual reversal of opinion.

We seem to have too many people who think protocol design consists of
listing all the codepoint values they can think of, and then getting
IETF to endorse it. Use cases and requirements are a key part and the
charters of various RAI groups make clear provision for those drafts to
be written, and the work then passed over.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:05 PM
> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Dean Willis; Elwell, John
> Cc: SIP IETF
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Late Milestones (was Re: Draft agenda, SIP 
> at IETF 72)
> 
> At 02:59 PM 7/18/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> > >Jul 2007 Location Conveyance with SIP to IESG
> > >       -- Waiting on face-to-face, but in GEOPRIV
> >
> >This one is interesting: I believe that it was not a good 
> idea to have 
> >the document in SIP when most of the controversial 
> discussions happen 
> >in GEOPRIV, i.e. the encoding wasn't been the problem --  
> the semantic was.
> 
> yeah *but* there is thing about the ID that creates new SIP 
> headers, and header parameters and a new response code... 
> that makes it be in SIP, according to an existing RFC (4485 I think)
> 
> >Spreading topics over different groups always makes the process more 
> >complicated.
> >
> >Ciao
> >Hannes
> >
> >PS: I also have to add that GEOPRIV clearly isn't the 
> easiest group I 
> >have dealt with. Hence, the delay is probably not so surprising.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> >sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use 
> >sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip 
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip