Hi, > David is my hero.
s/my/our/ :-) > I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very > close to ready for WGLC. If you could revise the draft in that time frame, that would be really great. Also, if you could discuss on the list what remains to be resolved in order to get the draft to be ready for WGLC, that would give us a way forward. Thanks! Gonzalo > > On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 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]> > <mailto:[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]> > > <mailto:[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]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > P2PSIP mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[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
