Hi, Personally I have nothing against moving the keep-alive mechanism to draft-keep, and I guess most people agree it is how it should have been done.
However, we have previously agreed not to do it, so I hope we will not spend lots of time to discuss it again. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:54 AM To: Mary Barnes Cc: Christer Holmberg; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip] New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > Hi folks, > > Christer has updated the document based on the action item from > Wednesday's SIP session (chaired by SIPPING chairs and modeled as the > proposed DISPATCH WG). If folks could please review the document and > raise any concerns on the document now, that would be appreciated. We > ask specifically for an answer to the question: Do you support the > document being adopted as a WG document in RAI (WG tbd)? A simple > "yes" is fine, however, if you don't think we should adopt this > document, could you please provide the reason. > > > So, given the outpouring of support, should we pull back the draft- ietf-sip-outbound and re-write it to refer to the keepalive mechanism of this draft instead of containing similar but not identical text? -- 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
