Hi David, what is the status of this effort?
Cheers, Gonzalo On 05/02/2015 4:21 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
