Well, given there are still deployments with Remote-Party-ID, who have
yet to migrate to P-Asserted-ID, let alone SIP identity, I'd say it is a
bit ahead of the curve. That said I do think its worth doing, but is
not a high priority.
-Jonathan R.
Dean Willis wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 2:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Working
Group of the IETF.
Title : SIP SAML Profile and Binding
Author(s) : H. Tschofenig, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-sip-saml-02.txt
Pages : 46
Date : 2007-5-29
So does anybody besides the authors care, or is this work just so far
ahead of the mainstream working group that we need to move the work to
a lower priority queue?
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
