Hi David, thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for such a revision?
Thanks, Gonzalo On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote: > I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet. > > On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
