Scott Lawrence wrote:
The main drawback of this would be
that a document would sometimes need to exist for longer as an I-D while
implementations are developed, but balancing that is the fact that those
implementations would then inform the first RFC version rather than some
subsequent
On 2010-06-20 10:41, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 6/20/2010 11:53 AM, SM wrote:
The reader will note that neither implementation nor operational
experience is required. In practice, the IESG does require
implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed
Standard status.
The IETF Last Call draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config ended
yesterday (it began 2010-03-23).
Abstract:
This document defines procedures for how a SIP User Agent should
locate, retrieve, and maintain current configuration information from
a Configuration Service.
This document
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 06:55 -0700, IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Scott Lawrence and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config
Revision
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 04:12 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Howdy,
I said I would shut up, but I missed one question from Cullen, which was:
This conversation constantly confuses the issue of must implement vs must
deploy. Which one are you objecting to here.
Answer: I am objecting to there
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:15 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:37 AM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Well, one could argue that a provider could cause the returned SIP url
for the change
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 08:59 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/6/2010 9:34 AM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
What is the justification that mandates a more complex model than
these use? It's not usually considered sufficient to simply cite the fact
that
some operators somewhere want something
, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/6/2010 1:39 PM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:10 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
By title and Introductory text, the document specifies its scope as user
agent
configuration by non-technical users. The actual contents of the
specification
suggests
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:24 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen,
I'm sure there are some deployments where polling would be fine but there
are lots that don't find this acceptable.
The Internet alaredy has quite a bit of experience with renewal of
parameters,
via DHCP and the DNS.
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 13:39 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:flu...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:56 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
No one has any empirical evidence or experience with what this thing
will do to large
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:10 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Review of: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config
Thanks for taking the time to read this, Dave.
This appears to be an Individual Submission.
For IETF process purposes that is correct. As the document says, it is
the product of a
I do have some problem with making the notification some kind of side
effect of the 'normal' registration. REGISTER exists to map an AOR to
one or more Contacts. The Configuration Service needs to be able to
address the change notice (whatever method carries it) to a specific UA,
_not_
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 12:05 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:27 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
If the UA is not behind a NAT, the cost of the subscription is a few
bytes of state
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 08:43 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Obviously you could make the expiration interval long, but however
long you make it will be as long as the worst-case config-change time,
in case the Subscription server failed/restarted in-between. So that
same time is also how
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 12:50 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
And the way this is written makes the Subscription portion now a
critical/blocking component in getting SIP service up and working
(unless I'm misreading it).
You are misreading it.
The configuration data is obtained via HTTPS before
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 15:09 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
The spec says in section 2.6
(Validity of Stored Configuration Data):
The UA
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 14:59 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Howdy,
This may not be within the normal rules of etiquette, but I will
re-iterate my issues with this draft which I raised when it was
discussed in RAI.
1) The mechanism does not scale, for large SSP's. (is this only meant
for small
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 22:11 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Changing the digest algorithm in DIGEST is pointless.
Careful... from the Introduction to the draft:
Note: This is unrelated to HTTP Digest Authentication.
___
Ietf mailing
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 18:50 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 19:02 -0700, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of application/3gpp-
ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR disclosure related to
this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is
On Oct 30, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
This is clearly a tradeoff between server flexibility and client's
being able to know what to do, so let's look at whether a client can
actually do something with the information. In the case of a
concurrent patch, if the client knows
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 11:28 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/.
Is a nice space-saving measure, but isn't true. That URL leads to a
query page, not a list of current drafts.
___
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 15:31 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I
carefully stayed away from social policy issues
1) What is political speech in China?
...
2) Are there any special rules about publishing and broadcasting? I
...
5) When discussing what I think
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:17 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs:
).
--
Scott LawrenceGlobespanVirata Embedded UPnP Web Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.emweb.com/
in the header and body (which meant that the comparison
had to be namespace-aware, it couldn't just be the equivalent of
strcmp).
--
Scott Lawrence Architect[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virata Embedded Web Technologyhttp://www.emweb.com/
James P. Salsman wrote:
[...] suppose I sent you a
picture as an attachment to an email. Would you like to know
whether it was attached from my camera or scanner (or filesystem)?
The human reading the email _might_ want to know, in which case the
body of the message is the right place
John Kristoff wrote:
I'm curious what happened to Starburst http://www.starburstcom.com.
Their mftp was pretty cool, but it looks like they are no longer around.
Bought by Adero Inc.:
http://www.adero.com/news_events/pressRelease76.html
Vernon Schryver wrote:
Still, there are other good reasons why the IESG should add something like
the following to sendmail.cf on odin.ietf.org to reject multi-part junk:
HContent-Type: $+Check_CT
SCheck_CT
R$*multipart$* $#error $: 553 reject multi-part junk
- elevators (in the US) go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15...
they skip 13! Does this make 14 a prime number ? ;-)
No - it makes 26 a prime number.
--
Scott Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30 matches
Mail list logo
