OK, two categories of drafts here.
If it's completed/approved, absolutely treat it like an RFC.
If it's mature but hasn't been completed/approved, it seems reasonable to
put this in an "upcoming" section, where it's easier to provide guidance
about "subject to change".
Thanks,
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francois Audet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian Stucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jonathan Rosenberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Avshalom Houri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: [Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
Same here. I prefer the whole list.
I checked again the list in the current document, and I didn't see
anything that was "controversial" (i.e., all the drafts quoted are
mature working group items).
If some of them were considered immature, we should remove them. But
otherwise, I'd rather we keep them in.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stucker, Brian (RICH1:AR00)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 07:58
To: Jonathan Rosenberg; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
Cc: [email protected]; Avshalom Houri; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
I would also prefer that I-D references be left in the
document. It's very helpful to the community to not only know
where SIP is at when you read the guide, but to know where
it's headed. If for no other reason than it prevents someone
from thinking they've discovered a novel problem and go off
implementing a solution parallel to what will soon
(hopefully) be an RFC. Likewise, if they find that the I-D is
incomplete, it gives them a reference to make comments
against that they may not have otherwise discovered.
It's an informative document. What if we just copy paragraphs
two and three of from the boilerplate "status of this memo"
into the introduction as a warning to those who read the
document later as an RFC that I-D's referenced by the guide
can change.
Is there any harm in doing this?
Regards,
Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: [email protected]; Avshalom Houri; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
>
> inline:
>
> Francois Audet wrote:
> > What about SIPS, which is already in hitchiker's guide, and
> which is
> > waiting on outbound because of a normative reference?
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > *From:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 01:01
> > *To:* Avshalom Houri; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *Subject:* RE: [RAI] RAI review of
> > draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> >
> > (As WG chair)
> >
> > Just a note that I should have included with the WGLC.
> >
> > The intention with this document is to republish on a
recurring
> > basis, and therefore to keep it up to date (say once a
> year or so).
> >
> > The 1st versions is intended to include gruu, outbound
> and ice, but
> > apart from that, anything that is not published in that
> timeframe
> > will probably be removed unless there is exceptional
> justification
> > for keeping it, with the idea that it will appear in
> the next version.
>
> This is news to me...
>
> What I thought would happen is that we have references to
everything
> in the guide, and when the guide appears as an RFC, whatever
> references are at RFC status at that time, get RFC numbers.
Everything
> else is referenced as an I-D.
>
> I think you are suggesting that, instead, when we send this
to IESG,
> we remove any content and references associated with
documents which
> are not on track to publication around the same timeframe as
> hitchhikers guide itself. Indeed it will require us to change those
> references to normative in order to get rfc-editor to do a
REF hold on
> hitchhikers till its dependencies clear.
>
> If my interpretation is correct, my next question is whether this
> applies to just the core specs or all of the specs.
>
> I personally would rather leave the document as is - include
> everything, and recognize that some references will be
drafts rather
> than RFCs when hitchhikers is published. Next round of hitchhikers
> will have more of them as RFCs.
>
> -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
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>
_______________________________________________
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
