Subject: [Sip] Revised Service Route Discovery draft

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:07:45 -0500

Following extended list discussion, we have revised the service route
discovery draft towards standards track and resubmitted. It should
appear in the archives shortly. In the meantime, please review:

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-ietf-sip-svcrtdisco-00.txt
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-ietf-sip-svcrtdisco-00.html
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-ietf-sip-svcrtdisco-00.xml

I believe that the only changes made from the P-header informational
draft that had already completed working group expert review were the
elimination of the P- and some slight language cleanup relating to
scope. Of course, this doesn't mean we didn't convolute entire sections
accidentally, so please give it a read. I'd like to move this to a WGLC
status fairly quickly.

Thanks,

--
Dean Willis

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:49:45 -0500

Ok, I asked everybody to take a look at the Service Route Discovery draft
on August 5.

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-scvrtdisco-00.txt

Since then, I've gotten one comment, from Adam Roach:

---
Section 5:

Service-Route = "Service-Route" HCOLON p-sr-value *( COMMA p-sr-value)
p-sr-value = name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )

Probably should be sr-value, instead of p-sr-value.
---

which is something I failed to catch when ripping out the P-headerishness.

I thought I had already issued a formal WGLC August 7, but apparently I
left said call sitting in the drafts folder on my home PC. Bad me.

Remember, this draft had already gone through the working group as a P-.
So, I'd like to request a quick working group last call.  If you have
issues (other than the above), get them to me no later than 21Aug. If
there are issues, we'll of course hold things up and fix them. If at all
possible, I'd like to send this to IETF Last Call by 22 Aug. Of coure,
issues can be raised during IETF last call too . . .

Thanks,

--
Dean