That is not impossible, but the prime aim of what is proposed is a BCP giving guidelines for usage of the existing documents.
If requirements for new work fall out of this, then well and good, in fact excellent - but that is more along the lines of the BCP discovers (and documents) that the current behaviour is x and discussion of that resolves that we actually need y then at that point we have identified a requirement, which we will want to find some way to document. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:25 PM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; 'Elwell, John' > Cc: 'Cullen Jennings'; 'SIP IETF'; 'Uzelac,Adam' > Subject: RE: [Sip] Thoughts on SIP Identity issues > > > You wrote: > > > > > Put in the contrapositive, if a change is not noticeably > by the end > > > users because they get exactly what they expected, then > its not an > > > attack. Nothing bad happened, so why would it be an attack? > > > > > > > Part of the problem here is that the end user expectations have not > > been rigorously defined for RFC 4474. Parts of RFC 4474 > allow things > > that the end user might not have expected, and so on. > > > > Part of what was on the slides on Tuesday was to create > some sort of > > informational / BCP that does set out to detail what RFC 4474 and > > other identity drafts provide, i.e. when an identity is delivered, > > this is the security that is / is not associated with it. > > So: to create a requirements document? > > -d > > _______________________________________________ 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
