Hi Marianne, And, the standardization of this document could well take longer than it will take to complete 4244bis. Per my list of pros/cons, to be correct and useful, this document is effectively standardizing Diversion header, which is actually more work than what's being done in the 4244bis and target-uri docs. So, you're waiting either way.
Regards, Mary. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:13 AM To: [email protected]; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BLISS] TR: New Version Notificationfordraft-mohali-diversion-history-info-01 Hi, I don't understand why this is premature. On the contrary, this is late. It is long time that Diversion header is implemented and now there are implementations based on History-Info header (RFC4244)(Here I'm just talking about call frowarding service). RFC4244 will still be as it is and making the History-info header interwork with the Diversion header will still be needed as RFC4244 is implemented. In the other hand, the work in progress on 4244bis/targetURI could takes time and interworking with Diversion header will may be also needed with the "new History-Info". Regards Marianne > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:57 PM > > It is premature to make this a working group draft or publishing it > until we have progressed on 4244bis/targetURI. _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
