A further word on this. Attempting to do any status change is going to create all sorts of downreferencing problems, which while not unresolvable, will certainly delay getting this out.
In order to register a new SIP option tag, draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag must be a standards track document. RFC 3427 mandates this. Draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag normatively references draft-ietf-mmusic-ice. If the former is standards track and the latter is either informational or experimental, I understand that would be a down reference. I was unable to fire up the reference dependency tool to find out what other intended standards track documents normatively referenced draft-ietf-mmusic-ice, but I suspect there are a number. I would therefore suggest you investigate the potential referencing impact further if you wish to proceed. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:48 PM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Cc: Cullen Jennings; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] ICE deployment data before LC for RFC > > Keith, > > Thanks for the attention and sorry our mail has crossed. > > Feel free to proceed as you best think. (I have made my point > as well). > > Henry > > -----Original Message----- > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:56 AM > To: Henry Sinnreich; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Cc: Cullen Jennings; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] ICE deployment data before LC for RFC > > As SIP WG chair and the document shepherd for > draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag this is what I shall be doing > with regard to the ancillary document in this process... > > I went to RFC 2026 and carefully read the section on proposed > standard: > > > 4.1.1 Proposed Standard > > The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed > Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a > specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" > level. > > A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved > known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, > has received > significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community > interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience > might result in a change or even retraction of the specification > before it advances. > > Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is > required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed > Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will > usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard > designation. > > The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience > prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that > materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies > behavior that may have significant operational impact on the > Internet. > > A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with > respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may > waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance > to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be > useful and > necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. > > Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature > specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain > experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. > However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if > problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying > implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive > environment is not recommended. > > My judgement is that at least the in terms of its draft, the > SIP WG has fulfilled the requirements for a request to > publish a proposed standard. > It appears to me that any further decision about > implementation rests with the IESG, who should obviously take > into account any submissions made during the IESG last call process. > > It is therefore my intent to proceed with the publish request > for draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag. > > Regards > > Keith > > > ________________________________ > > From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Cc: Cullen Jennings; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE deployment data before LC for RFC > > > > The work on ICE is truly impressive and so are the > numerous I-Ds associated with ICE. > > > > However, before sending the <ice-17> I-D for LC to the > IESG, it would be prudent and responsible to the industry > (that spends considerable resources on ICE in good faith) > implementing ICE, to either > (1) make it an informational RFC or (2) publish some > deployment data showing such items as: > > > > * NAT scenarios that have been tested, > * The % of success, > * Performance, such as call setup delay using SIP. > > > > I have not seen any such public data on ICE deployment, > for example with SIP. A private report has raised my concern > about the performance of ICE. > > > > In the best IETF tradition, it would also help to have > open source code available for ICE, before declaring it a standard. > > > > ICE is too important for the IETF (good work Jonathan and other > authors!) not to publish (1) deployment results and (2) > publish open source code as well. > > The various nits discussed on the lists are only of > secondary importance to the LC compared to the above and > would get resolved with such a process anyway. > > > > These are my personal two cents. > > Henry Sinnreich > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
