One question and one comment below [MB]. Mary.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:29 AM To: Dean Willis Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip] WG Status, and Towards a Dublin SIP Agenda > 4) Sep 2007 Example security flows to IESG (Informational) > -- Ok, I've lost track on this one. In my hands waiting for some information from ekr. > 11) Feb 2008 Identify requirements for test matrix to move SIP to > Draft Standard > -- I guess we need to talk about this. Agreed - I hope to have a strawman of some sort this time around. > 16) Apr 2008 Essential corrections to RFC 3261 (1st batch) to IESG > (PS) > -- This is a perennial favorite for discussion, as Essential > Corrections are essential confusing to a lot of people. I will start another thread on this. > > > > This leaves the following probable topics: > > 1) Example Security Flows This needs no agenda time. > > 2) SAML [MB] What more needs to be done in this area? I thought the document was fairly complete or are there outstanding issues? [/MB] > 3) Test Matrix for Draft Standard A short amount of time for this (if substantiated by list discussion) would be useful. > > 4) Delivering Request-URI and Parameters to UAS via Proxy > 5) DTLS-SRTP and RFC 4474 > 6) MIME Body Handling > 7) Essential Corrections Lets see how the other thread I start goes - hopefully we can actually do something here on list instead of eating face-time for it. > > 8) Termination of Early Dialog Prior to Final Response I strongly agree that we should focus on chartered work, and suggest that only things really getting list attention take significant agenda time. > > > So, the floor is now open for discussing what should be on the agenda. > Remember, chartered work (as listed above) gets first priority. Where is the overload discussion? (I'm not suggesting agenda time necessarily) [MB] We should allow agenda time in SIPPING for an update/status from the Overload design team. The SIPPING chairs (I) still have an outstanding action to define a WG deliverable for the output of the design team. Volker will be splitting the solution out of his current individual document and discuss this as a possible document to meet that deliverable. Whether we progress that document or merge it back with the solution later should be considered. But, for now, we should keep discussion of this topic in SIPPING WG. [/MB] > > > I'm also deeply concerned about #4 and #5 above and trying to figure > out how to get traction. Anybody got an idea? > > -- > Dean, SIP chair for the last 9 years . . . > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
