On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> Cullen,
>
> Whilst neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the charter, I did not find
> anything in the charter that said the information had to be in the SIP header
> rather than in the body. On what basis do you make that deduction?
>
> John
I am writing to let you know about a change in the IETF meeting network.
At IETF 79 in Beijing, the IETF network will be connected to the open
Internet with absolutely no filtering. However, we have agreed with our
hosts that only IETF meeting participants will have access to the
network. Followi
Some more Amsterdam airport - Maastricht train info:
On 27 jun 2010, at 22:01, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> From there, there's a train to the city of Utrecht every 30 minutes at x.29
> and x.59. This is a 33 minute ride. When you arrive in Utrecht, change to the
> train to Maastricht, which s
Mary,
When I read the charter it is not clear why from the first paragraph you
deduct the second paragraph.
If the first paragraph will say
" The goal of this working group is to enable inter-domain communications
over the Internet, using protocols such as SIP, while still allowing people
to use th
It looks to me that one can imagine 'centralized' solutions which are
also based on reusing SIP related functionality developed in RAI. I
would rather not close such an option and allow the WG a window of
opportunity in which alternate solutions that could meet the same goals
can be presented.
D
If the problem we are trying to solve is how developers decide which RFC to
implement in this situation, perhaps all we need to do is make sure that the
status conveys all the relevant information. The rfc-index file currently
lists 821 as
(Obsoletes RFC0788) (Obsoleted by RFC2821) (Also STD0
Hi Mary,
I also think that listing the deliverables should be independent from
mentioning the existing initial contributions. The existing contributions could
be listed as well, but they should not preclude other contributions on the same
items after the WG is formed.
Regards,
Dan
> -O
> The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to
> peer based approach to finding domains that claim to be
> responsible for a given phone number and validation protocols
> to ensure a reasonable likelihood that a given domain
> actually is responsible for the phone number.
Hi,
