Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Michael Thomas
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:11 PM
To: Eric Burger
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Signing P-Asserted-Identity
Can I make a suggestion to you, the chairs and the rest of the group? That
nothing be advanced in this area to PS until you have shown real and
interoperable
versions that are deployed in real life situations? Not in the DS kind
of rigor,
but at least _something_ that demonstrates that that this is a) not
academic and
b) there's real community interest in deploying.
Do you mean this in the context of the P-Asserter draft, or for rfc4474?
I mean with whatever it is that gets us closer to the day that there is
light at the end of a tunnel that could in principle lead us closer to the
shore of the quagmire that Dean so eloquently detailed.
So far, though, it's mostly just been complaints about why anyone would need
anything other than 4474. Now if we could only have gotten such a real-world
deployment experience requirement before moving 4474 to PS...
Indeed.
Mike
_______________________________________________
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
