Subject: [Sip] Re: [Tsvwg] Draft Liaision response to SG13 on Emergency Telecommunications

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:14:50 +0200

Janet P Gunn skrev:
> 
> Magnus,
> 
> You might want to add-
> 
> draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00.txt

Well, I want to be somewhat restricted in adding individual work into 
the liaison. Also to me it is not clear how this is applicable in the 
emergency context.

> and
> draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01.txt
> 

Well, I got another comment about ECRIT WG document which we hadn't 
considered. I will contact the WG chairs and see what they say.

> 
> And maybe
> draft-carlberg-trip-attribute-rp-02

Well, this is in IETF last call currently. So I will put it on my list 
of documents to consider and try to learn more about it.

> 
> My spelling checker says "Liaision" should be "Liaison", but it may be a 
> US centric dictionary.

No, it is Liaison, but I think that error only is in the subject of this 
email.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:18:34 -0400

Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote on 08/01/2007 

> the liaison. Also to me it is not clear how this is applicable in the 

Well, you included draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01, and 
draft-polk-tsvwg-signaled-domain-id-00 addresses the same scenarios.  It 
would make sense to include either both or neither.
> considered. I will contact the WG chairs and see what they say.

Yes, ecrit should make the call. But I know at least one other stds body (
PacketCable PKT2 0-SP-RSTF-D01-060330 TCHG) is addressing it.

Janet

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 02:04:20 +0200

While I wish to make no comment on the inclusion of other documents, I
would point out that the two drafts:
draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01 and draft-ietf-sip-rph-response
were both discussed by the SIP WG and agreed that we would work on them.
This is still awaiting AD approval of the new milestones, but apart from
that, these are now essentially WG items. This does place them in a
different position to other author drafts.

Regards

Keith
________________________________

	From: Janet P Gunn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:19 PM
	To: Magnus Westerlund
	Cc: [email-masked]; IETF SIPPING WG; tsvwg; NSIS
	Subject: [Sip] Re: [Tsvwg] Draft Liaision response to SG13
onEmergency Telecommunications

	Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote on

	> considered. I will contact the WG chairs and see what they
say. 
	
	Yes, ecrit should make the call. But I know at least one other
stds body (PacketCable PKT2 0-SP-RSTF-D01-060330 TCHG) is addressing it.

	Janet