I believe there were two points of contention at Monday's SIP meeting
wrt Location Conveyance:
-- the "recipient=" providing an expected result, given no security
properties, and
-- the granularity of error codes
I'm not sure we're planning on talking about the first topic
tomorrow, and I definitely consider it secondary to solving the error
code issue.
Now, folks admitted that they hadn't read the recent version of the
ID, and the error section has changed a great deal. Thus, I ask that
everyone attending tomorrow's face-to-face read section 3.4 , and all
of section 5 to bring yourself up to speed on the current text. The ID is here
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-09.txt
James
At 02:35 PM 12/5/2007, DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\) wrote:
We failed to achieve agreement in the SIP WG on one of the issues for
location conveyance.
The chairs and AD considered we were unlikely to get rapid agreement on
list and a further face-to-face discussion in Vancounver would be
appropriate.
Therefore we have:
Place: Salon 2
Time: 16:15
Date: Thursday 6th December
Duration: 1 hour
for those who are interested in resolving this problem.
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
