(As WG co-chair) You will not from the agenda that we have a number of author drafts to be discussed.
In general we will be looking as part of this discussion to identify if there is work to be performed within the WG on this subject. The drafts are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-in-responses-00.t xt Updates a SIP standards track document. Note that IEPREP are now out of the requirements loop on this subject. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01 .txt Prime function is the registration of new namespaces in the IANA registry. The requirements for adding to this registry are: "A new namespace MUST be defined in a Standards Track RFC, following the 'Standards Action' policy in [RFC2434]". The proposal is to take this action using a SIP WG item. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sip-body-handling-01 .txt An attempt to plug the underspecification of message body handling that should have been in RFC 3261. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-munakata-sip-privacy-new-01.tx t A replacement privacy mechanism for RFC 3323. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gurbani-sip-domain-certs-06.tx t Security document therefore requirements work is done in SIP. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dotson-sip-certificate-auth-03 .txt Security document therefore requirements work is done in SIP. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-burger-sip-info-00 An attempt to provider a sounder basis for INFO usage, and therefore an reference point for questions that keep coming back to the SIP list. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-sip-identity-media-00.txt Security document therefore requirements work is done in SIP. Independently of what appears in the slides we will be looking for the answers to two questions for each of these drafts: Is there support for a body of work in this area? ------------------------------------------------- To answer this question it is suggested that you primarily study the abstract for the draft, and if necessary seek clarification on the list or at the microphone in the meeting. Instead of this abstract, you may wish to suggest some alternative scope for adoption. At this point we don't necessarily need to decide whether the work is standards track, BCP or informational although that will form a part of the discussions the ADs and the chairs have in setting milestones. Note that answering YES to this also expresses an intention within the WG to provide resources to work on and review this draft (therefore do not answer "YES" if you just consider it mostly harmless. There are three answers to this question: YES NO NEEDS FURTHER WORK BEFORE WE DECIDE A yes result means that the chairs will discuss with the ADs whether it is appropriate to set new milestones for this work and what they should be, taking into account the discussion made. We will also proceed to the second question. Does the document currently provided constitute a baseline draft for the identified work? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- What the WG is looking for here is whether the document, or its next revision, could (subject to the agreement of the milestones with the AD) become a draft-ietf-sip-xxxx document. This doesn't mean it has to be perfect, merely that this is a better starting point to the work than some other draft that may exist or that someone intends to produce. Again there are three answers to this question: YES NO NEEDS FURTHER WORK BEFORE WE DECIDE It is entirely appropriate to hold discussions on the list to formulate your opinions to answer the above questions. Expressions of support are also appropriate. Note that we may not proceed to the questions on all these drafts if it becomes apparent from list discussion or discussion at the mic that the answer will not be "YES". Requests for clarification on any of the above are welcome. Regards Keith _______________________________________________ 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
