> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael Thomas > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:11 PM > To: Eric Burger > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Signing P-Asserted-Identity > > Can I make a suggestion to you, the chairs and the rest of the group? That > nothing be advanced in this area to PS until you have shown real and > interoperable > versions that are deployed in real life situations? Not in the DS kind > of rigor, > but at least _something_ that demonstrates that that this is a) not > academic and > b) there's real community interest in deploying.
Do you mean this in the context of the P-Asserter draft, or for rfc4474? I'm fine with that for the P-Asserter draft. I have no interest in updating it if no one uses it. I submitted it before implementing in order to get feedback on whether people thought it was meaningless/useless in value, or provided anything worthwhile; and if anything needed to be corrected or taken into account for the mechanism. So far, though, it's mostly just been complaints about why anyone would need anything other than 4474. Now if we could only have gotten such a real-world deployment experience requirement before moving 4474 to PS... -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
