Subject: Re: [Ieprep] SIP requirements draft after WG last call

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:26:55 -0800

Hi, Folks,

We on the IESG approved draft-ietf-ietf-sip-reqs-03 during the IESG
call on Thursday.  I had some review issues with it that did not
require holding it up, but which did result in the following RFC Editor
note.  You'll see this note in the announcement Monday:

 RFC Editor Note: Before REQ-1 insert the following paragraph: 
 Note: not all the following requirements are possible to meet at once. 
 They may represent in some cases tradeoffs that must be considered by
 the designer.

I'm fairly confident that folks should be ok with the above.  It
was stimulated by conflict between the the requirement for proxy
visibility (REQ-17) and confidentiality etc. (SEC-8 and SEC-9), one of
the two issues I recorded in the id-tracker and passed on to the author
but did not block the draft about.   

The other issue goes to the future work with the doc.  The issue is
realism about common expression of the emergency namespace/routing
etc. Three requirements presented expectations of high understanding
across heterogeneous domains (REQ-4, 5 and 7), and this struck me as a
very high expectation, but now SIPPING can consider what technology
supports the requirements.

Anyway, good news, and thanks for the hard work!

Allison

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep