Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-03.txt

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:00:39 -0600

> > What Henning didn't say is that he and James have ANOTHER document
> > (currently in the SIP working group) which DOES address the Resource
> > Priority Header, and should probably be referenced in the document.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-sip-resource-02.txt
> 
> we don't want to reference the above draft because its still a work in
> progress.  

but, your reference cites many other work-in-progress drafts ( some even
expired.) For example, the Classifier Extension Header for RTP. I don't 
know which WG is discussing that draft. So, I see no harm in referring
both the requirements (RFC3487) and the actual priority header draft.
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:34:03 +0000

> both the requirements (RFC3487) and the actual priority header draft.

my mistake for not finishing the original sentence above.  I should have
added that RFC-3487 is a sufficient reference for the original passage
in the Framework document (though i'll probably slightly alter that
passage shortly to make sure of this).  given a choice between a draft
and an RFC as a reference point, its best to choose the RFC.

as for the other drafts referenced, one is allowed to cite them within
constraints.  I'd like to replace those in the draft where possible, and
in fact two will be replaced by new RFCs (eg, 3487 :-) that came out
right after I submitted version of the Framework draft.  hopefully, in
short period, two others will also be replaced by RFCs.

-ken