From: "Scott Petrack" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:45:53 +0200

I have uploaded a revised version of the PINT internet draft to:

http://www.vocaltec.com/~petrack/PINT/draft-ietf-pint-profile-01a.txt

This contains many of the suggestions that were talked about at the
previous IETF. But there is still much
work to do. Igor suggested that I post at least this much in an effort to
start some discussion. There will be a
much more complete revision submitted as an internet draft before the
deadline.

Here are some issues that are *still* open. Some may be controversial, so
I'd like to get consensus on the list.

1.  I would like to take out the whole Q.763 stuff, unless people really
require it. I would much rather save it for a future extension. It will
just make things a lot simpler and cleaner. Quite frankly, we are just as
likely to screw it up, so I'd rather let the ITU-T deal with such
"extensions for Q.763 compatibility".

2. Along similar lines, I would like to take out all the ITU-T related
stuff. I would MUCH rather have the ITU-T relate to our standard, rather
than the other way around.  As a model, I take H.323, which uses RTP. I
would rather let the ITU-T decide how they make our standard interwork with
theirs.

3. Completing the examples section

4. using wildcards and comma-separated choices within the SDP payload of
the REGISTER request.

5. Get the BNF right

6. Of course we need real security text.

Scott Petrack
VocalTec Communications Ltd.
[email-masked]

---------
This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List.