Subject: Re: FW: IPPhone Profile Last Call

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:02:29 +1100

G'Day Tom,

A comment regarding the naming of this draft. I thought that there was a
common thread in this group that we would not 'do' profiles on the
Megaco list. Therefore I think that the draft name "ietf-megaco-..." is
misleading.

Cheers, Christian

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>
> Resend -- looks like the first try didn't make it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Tom-PT [NORSE:B901:EXCH]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:29 AM
> To: megaco
> Subject: IPPhone Profile Last Call
>
> draft-ietf-megaco-ipphone-03.txt has been out for a couple of weeks.  Peter
> Blatherwick has just reminded me that this is the draft we were waiting for
> to take to Last Call.
>
> I hereby announce WG Last Call on draft-ietf-megaco-ipphone-03.txt, which is
> proposed as an Informational RFC.  Assuming no major problems, WG Last Call
> will expire October 6.
>
> Tom Taylor

---

From: Peter Blatherwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:02:09 -0400

Megaco IP Phone has been a work item of the Megaco WG since before its
initial posting under current naming as 00 version, June 99.  (Before that
it was a private submission "draft-blatherwick-...".)  This was discussed
extensively on the list, and agreed.  The draft has since undergone lots of
review and re-work as a result of list feedback.  It was agreed it could
proceed to Last Call under current naming as of IETF 47, Adelaide, pending
closure of issues, all of which are now complete.

Not sure what the value of changing names would be.  IETF bodies can
certainly define profiles.  If not worked through Megaco WG, then just where
would they be looked at?

-- Peter Blatherwick

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 21:02
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: IPPhone Profile Last Call

G'Day Tom,

Cheers, Christian