Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC: draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff-08

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:12:54 -0500

I see _zero_ comments to the list on this document since the LC was  
issued.

Jari - did you get any comments directly?

Folks: I need some evidence that somebody actually cares to see this  
published and has read what's in it.
If you've read it and think its ready to go, please send a note to the  
list to that effect ASAP.

RjS

On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> Please get your comments in on this draft as soon as you can. Be  
> sure to send comments on the SIP draft to the SIP list as well.
>
> RjS
>
> On Mar 10, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
>> Folks -
>>
>> This is a Working Group Last Call for comments on
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xcap- 
>> diff-08.txt
>>
>> The editor for draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff and draft-ietf-sip- 
>> xcapevent has indicated these drafts are ready for WGLC.
>> We're coordinating the LC time between the two working groups.
>>
>> Please have your comments to the editor/list by three weeks from  
>> today (March 31,2008).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> RjS
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:30:45 -0500

I have reviewed the document and do care to see it published, but I'm
not an XML expert, so can't comment on the technical correctness of the
solution. I'm assuming folks with that expertise have reviewed the
document?  

Also, the security section doesn't specifically recommend anything, just
that " must provide sufficient security capabilities", without stating
what might be needed or used.  So, more detail might be needed (based on
my experiences with the security directorate/ADS) - at least provide
minimal recommendations. Perhaps, adding a note that in the case where
SIP event packages are used, the security as described in RFC 3265
applies, which points back to SIP security mechanisms, might be
sufficient.  

Other than that, I think the document should be ready to progress.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:13 PM
To: Robert Sparks
Cc: Jari Urpalainen; simple mailing list; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC: draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff-08

RjS

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:19:31 +0300

> solution. I'm assuming folks with that expertise have reviewed the
mostly the "correctness" is based on xml-patch-ops, this makes an 
"upper" layer on top of that, i.e. the xml stuff  is much simpler, 
though there are some extension points, which are made as liberal as the 
w3c schema tool reasonably allows.
> applies, which points back to SIP security mechanisms, might be
I can add a reference to sip notification framework, since it is the 
most likely use-case for this.

> Other than that, I think the document should be ready to progress.
Thanks Mary,
--Jari