Subject: [Fwd: [Sipping] Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-03.txt]

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:08:50 -0600

I'd like to point out questions (reproduced below) raised last year by 
Gonzalo about the TOIP draft.

While I'm sure the current draft addresses this to some extent, these do 
seem somewhat similar to more recent concerns rasied on this list, and 
the possibiliy that we (SIPPING) may be trying pull the cart in a couple 
of different directions at the same time.

We and our chairs do need to do a bit more thinking about how to move 
towards a more complete consensus here.  I don't see an obvious path, 
but am open to suggestions.

A couple of possibilities that come to mind:

1) Get a focused review team together to hash it out.
2) Talk about it in Dallas.
3) See if we can rent a boxing ring in Dallas and do a "winner takes 
all" resolution. I predict a lot of action on side-bets, but I'm not 
sure we'll make much off the direct-to-video royalties.

Give it some thought, and get back to us.

Thanks,

--
Dean

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Sipping] Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-03.txt
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:33:23 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
To: Arnoud van Wijk <[email-masked]>,        Gunnar Hellstrom 
<[email-masked]>,        sipping <[email-masked]>
CC: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>, Dean Willis <[email-masked]>

Hi,

the WGLC on this draft has just finished. The authors have received a
set of comments that will need to be taken into account.

However, I would like to discuss the scope and the purpose of this draft
before going ahead with it. By reading the title of the draft, it seems
like a requirements document. However, the draft seems to define a
framework: not a framework of requirements, but a framework to implement
ToIP services. In that sense, the draft seems like the definition of a
service (the same way as the conferencing framework defines the
conference service). Additionally, the draft also contains requirements
on the graphical user interface of the user agents implementing the
service, and system requirements (e.g., minimum storage capatity of some
of the nodes used to implement the service).

My question is, what is the purpose of this draft?

Does it aim to define requirements so that the SIPish WGs develop
protocol extensions needed for the service, does it aim to define a
service framework using existing protocols and extensions, or does it
aim to do something else?

We need to clarify what we are trying to do here...

Thanks,

Gonzalo

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

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

---

From: "Dale R. Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:47:56 -0500

One nit:  -04 has finally gotten the section title right, "Authors'
Addresses", but the apostrophe is an octal 222 rather than "'".

Dale