On Mar 19, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > >> >> My sense that the WG was somewhat shocked by the proposal that we >> place this draft into the essential corrections process. >> I'm not exactly certain we had agreement on making domain-certs an >> "essential correction" according to the current process. > > OK - no worry , that is fine. I think I must have got the wrong idea > from part of the draft where it quotes parts of 3261 and says that > 3261 is incorrect. It was my sense of where I suspected things > where going from the discussion but clearly I must have got this > wrong. I wasn't trying to say anything about how we move the domain- > certs document forward - just commenting on dependency issue. >
Oddly enough, making a normative change to RFC 3261 does not qualify a document as part of the "Essential Corrections" process, as I understand it. One could reasonably argue that this is the proper determinant, but that doesn't seem to be what we're using, and it certainly isn't the format that the current domain-certs draft is written in. You may be right in that this draft should be an "Essential Correction". Far be it from me to make that determination -- Keith and Robert seem to be driving the essential corrections process, and I'd like to hear their opinions on this point of procedure. Help! -- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
