Subject: [MMUSIC] Intended Status For SDP-new

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:37:55 -0500

I was just looking at the IESG's ID tracker and noticed that the intended
status for SDP-new is Proposed Standard rather than Draft Standard.  Is this
correct?

Tom Taylor
[email-masked]
Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490)

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:47:37 -0500

>status for SDP-new is Proposed Standard rather than Draft Standard.  Is this

Yes. The change was supposed to make the IESG review quicker, since there
is no interop requirement for proposed standard. 

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:57:51 -0500

Since the Internet runs on Proposed Standards, this is hardly surprising 
:-) However, given that protocols like SIP and RTSP depend on SDP, 
wouldn't that delay their advancement to Draft?

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:10:31 +0100 (MET)

According to our discussion with Allison (if I remember correctly)
this won't.  We can very much write up the interop stuff after cycling
at Proposed and go to Draft in half a year or so.  And there is clearly
evidence for long-lasting real-world SDP deployment.

Joerg

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:08:18 -0500

>wouldn't that delay their advancement to Draft?

Probably. The idea was to get a new proposed standard quickly, so 3GPP
could use it, then fill in the interop matrix afterwards. We should
probably make a start on the interop, while waiting for IESG review 
of the spec. Any volunteers to compile the test matrix? :)

Colin