I vote for the latter: form an Identity Work Group. That will (1)
attract security folks whom would not be interested in INFO, (2)
attract privacy folks who would not be interested in Connection Reuse,
and (3) help SIP finish.
On Jul 20, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
1. Mechanisms for secure expression of identity in requests and
responses.
--------------
RFC 4474 certainly does nothing for identity in responses, so it
doesn't meet the requirement of our charter. so work on responses
is clearly in the scope of the charter. And note that the charter
doesn't say "A mechanism" but "mechanisms", so revising RFC 4474 or
documenting an alternative is arguably within the scope of our
charter.
Is developing the requirements for #1 above something we can
actually accomplish with a strong consensus? I hope so.
This part of the charter was written to cover the work in RFC 4474
and RFC 4916.
As folks figure out what is the problem that Dean wants to solve
around Identity and what solutions are possible, we can figure out
if it should happen in SIP, SIPPING, or a new WG and adjust charters
accordingly.
Cullen <as RAI AD>
_______________________________________________
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
