Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance -03 submitted

From: Andrew Newton ^lt;andy@hxr.us>
Date: Fri Jun 30 2006 - 09:29:50 EDT

To be clear, I was just wondering if there were any objections to
GEOPRIV adopting this document... as in, I wanted to know what issues
existed or might be caused. If the document is to move working
groups, the first step is to understand the problems we are currently
having with progressing this document and the problems we may have by
moving it.

We'll have to confer with the SIP wg and ADs, but I think Allison's
idea is the best and fastest way to move forward.

Is there an issue tracker for this document? That would most likely
help.

-andy

On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:

>
> Andy asks if Geopriv objects to adopting this document. It would
> make sense for us in terms of its work, and I support our working
> on this. The glitch will come when we try to finish off
> the parts which create a new SIP header, option tag and error
> code, which can only be done by the SIP WG, per RFC 3427.
>
> In the past, we've had AD negotiation (mine) where a non-SIP
> WG got a fast-tracking, cooperating review that just checked
> over SIP extensions in a draft to see that they were OK after non-
> extension work was done. Maybe Cullen can help us borrow this
> draft and
> work this way.
>
> (Hopeful)
>
> Allison
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:29:50 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 09:45:34 EDT