Your proposal as to what goes into the hitchhiker's guide sounds sensible to me.
I will take the comment about the file nameing convention into the next version of my essential-corrections draft. Proposals for a naming convention welcome; if no alternatives I will use something based on what Jonathan suggests below. I see only two issues: - we seem to be unable to decide what is a fix and what is not. If we make a decision that something is a fix after the -00 version, we need to decide whether the continuity of the existing nameing has priority or the convention of having -fix in the name. - there are already a number of candidate drafts, which obviously do not yet follow this convention. Again we need to decide whether to keep the continuity of the existing naming or not. In regard to the fork-loop-fix, this needs to be rediscussed in the WG and has agenda time at the forthcoming meeting. We are looking to get a website or WIKI up that clearly indicates what is in progress. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:18 PM > To: IETF SIP List > Subject: [Sip] Open issue in the hitchhikers guide - > seriously! Relation to essential corrections > > I was working on my regular update to the sip hitchhikers guide: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers > -guide-02.txt > > and ran into an issue. We are now pursuing the SIP essential > corrections > process: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-drage-sip-essential- > correction-01.txt > > which has begun to produce internet drafts, that are > draft-ietf-sip-XXX, which will be tracked and produced by the > working group. The question is, do these drafts get included > into the hitchhikers guide or not. My view on this, is NO, > they do not. The reason is that these drafts will never reach > RFC, only the collected essential correction RFC. So, once > that first RFC is produced, the hitchhikers guide would > reference that, and that would encompass everything. > > So, in the interim, what I'd propose is that the running I-D > version of hitchhikers guide have an "essential corrections" > draft, which in fact references all of the I-Ds currently in > line for essential correction. > Unfortunately, its not clear which drafts those are. > record-route-fix, yes. What about loop-fix? Is that going in? > It would be convenient to have a way of clearly knowing what > drafts are going to be for essential corrections. Is the rule: > > draft-ietf-sip-*-fix > > are drafts targeted for essential correction? If so, I think > that should be clearly stated in the > drage-essential-corrections draft. > > Thanks, > Jonathan R. > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
