Subject: [Sip] Path to Working Group Item

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:07:49 -0500

There has been considerable discussion on the PATH header on the list
indicating more than significant interest to consider it a working 
group item.  Are there any objections?

Brian

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Mart Nurmet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:45:53 -0800

No, go for it.  -   Mart

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:30:07 +0200

> group item.  Are there any objections?

the number of people (in this case the mobile gang) interested in
something should not be the only criteria of making that something a sip
working group document.  the first criteria should be that the contents
of the draft and the requirements behind it don't conflict with the sip
standard itself.

a lot would need to changed in the bis in order to avoid the current
conflicts.  so go ahead and get that done first and then try to make the
path header a working group document.  or may be things have changed and
now it is only money that speaks like we were able to read from a very
frank posting earlier this week.

may be our area directors can give us some guidance here?

-- juha