Hi, what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working on it?
Thanks, Gonzalo On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the important >> issues. The pass that has been made is largely around normalizing the text >> to be compliant with the terminology of RFC 6940, but it certainly will need >> an additional pass after a few questions to the group: >> >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions: >> >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) and >> the language has been very much genericized in base. Should we make >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the last >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this? >> >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention that the >> AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…) > Agree > >> >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the mailing >> list to address these concerns? >> >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) can of worms, >> but it has been in the open issues section for some time and should be at >> least asked of the list) > No, we don’t need to do this > >> >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? There was >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no conclusion was >> reached. >> >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't likely to be >> useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as an open issue in the >> draft, need to check) > Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this point > >> >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In discussion with >> the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is yes, there is useful >> material and we should push the draft out, but I wanted to discuss. Assuming >> there is still interest, I'd also welcome any comments on the draft...I'm >> sure I missed a few spots where it no longer aligns with 6940. > I would like to see this finished. > >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
