No, I was very clear on the conference calls we had on this that I
want to get all the things that are broken on the table. Without
understanding the whole picture, we will just build a hodge podge of
solutions that can't be simultaneous combined to solve a bunch of the
problems.
On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:33 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Cullen,
I think there was some confusion or miscommunication - it was my
impression that what you asked for previously was for just *one* use-
case/scenario where 4474 doesn't work the way we'd like, so the WG
could focus on that one case and decide if it's legitimate to drive
for a different mechanism. I think that's why John presented just
one case. But at the mic it sounded more like you wanted to know
*all* scenarios we thought should be handled.
Which is it?
-hadriel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cullen Jennings
Hmm, I don't think anyone made quite that argument. Personally, I'd
rather spend time thinking about the problems that were presented
today in the meeting than repeat previous discussions.
Cullen <with my individual hat on>
_______________________________________________
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
