On Feb 28, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > > > 10 minutes on the phone number dichotomy thing isn't going to be > > even close enough to cut it. It should be either zero or a more > > significant number. > > > > We have 30 minutes on media security. The only chartered item there > > is the requiremetns document which I thought was mostly done. Why is > > there so much time dedicated to this? I would rather move that to > > INFO or the identity mess. > > Me too. But hey, the media security requirements document is > CHARTERED. We have permission to work on it and a commitment to a > deliverable, with a published milestone. We don't have that for INFO > or the identity mess (even though I think media security is blocked on > the identity mess -- our AD currently disagrees). >
Dean - I think we must be having some serious miscommunications - many times in the past I have had enough typos in my emails that no one could understand what I might have been thinking but .... I don't think I said that. The two things I thought I said that might have been confused are: 1) I don't think the E.164 discussion is holding up milestone items in MEDIACTRL or SIMPLE 2) I don't think a problem in some mechanism such as 4474 should be holding up the media security requirements draft. (If I could bold requirements in the previous sentences I would) I certainly do think it is important that we have a clear understanding of how E.164 numbers fit into the overall SIP security picture. Sorry if I said something that made you think otherwise. _______________________________________________ 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
