James, I fully support your proposal.
Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James M. Polk Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:47 PM To: Dean Willis; IETF SIP List Cc: Cullen Jennings Subject: Re: [Sip] Revised agenda for SIP -- needs more work yet At 03:39 PM 2/28/2008, Dean Willis wrote: >Keith and I just spent the past three hours revising the agenda for >SIP at IETF 71. > >It's very full, and we are not going to have time to discuss >everything we need to discuss -- we have only 2.5 hours this time. > >Please take a look at: > >http://www.softarmor.com/mediawiki/index.php/SIP_Agenda_IETF_71 I thought (and hoped) Resource-Priority in Responses http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-rph-in-responses-01.t xt was within the charter (but without a specific milestone) that we can make a WG item and WGLC about the same day? Keith (putting him on the spot) mentioned this in Chicago. Vancouver muddied the water with the introduction of "use-case#2" - which has now been explicitly removed from consideration by this version. What do the WG (and chairs) think about this? >-- >Dean _______________________________________________ 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
