Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09.txt ready for IESG?

From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:57:22 +0100

(As WG chair)

The SIP WG chairs and the author all think this document is ready for sending to the IESG.

We have had WGLC announced 5th July 2004 to complete 17th July 2004. 
We had a further last round of WG review requested 26th October 2005 to complete 6th November 2005.
We have had significant discussion on the lists since then of this draft, and discussion in SIP WG sessions, and all comments have been resolved.

If you believe this document IS NOT ready to send to IESG, can you please indicate this to the list and the WG chairs by 12:00 midday UK time (7:00 am US Eastern Time) on 30th June 2006, giving technical justification for your objection.

Please limit this thread to answering the question above. If you have other discussion relating to GRUU generally, then please use a different thread.

regards

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 22 June 2006 20:50
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
	Author(s)	: J. Rosenberg
	Filename	: draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09.txt
	Pages		: 38
	Date		: 2006-6-22
	
Several applications of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) require
a user agent (UA) to construct and distribute a URI that can be used
by anyone on the Internet to route a call to that specific UA
instance.  A URI that routes to a specific UA instance is called a
Globally Routable UA URI (GRUU).  This document describes an
extension to SIP for obtaining a GRUU from a server and for
communicating a GRUU to a peer within a dialog.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:57:23 +0100

_______________________________________________
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: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:01:39 -0500

The way I look at it is the draft is still in WGLC, and has been  
since last year. We never terminated its WGLC state, although the  
document was revised three times during WGLC.

Now, if you think that we need more detailed review of specific new  
material in this version draft before we complete WGLC, that's fine  
and probably very reasonable, and should be done as part of the  
ongoing WGLC. That's what Keith was asking -- if you don't think it's  
ready (and you don't) please let us know.

So, I'll log this as a request to do a structured review of the  
latest GRUU draft before completing WGLC and sending the doc to the  
IESG.

--
Dean

On Jun 26, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>
> (This email sent purely with my individual contributor hat on)
>
> This draft has had substantial changes since it was last WGLC  
> (which was an apreviated WGLC at that). We are not talking about  
> some typos were fixed - an extra 20 pages of text got added. The  
> discution got very detailed and many people decided to wait and  
> review all the changes it once it was done. Technically I doubt the  
> WG needs to ever WGLC any document but the RAI WGs have had a long  
> tradition of using WGLC and I think people have come to expect  
> them. I also beilve that they improve document quality and also  
> help judge if their is consensus on work. I suspect that people  
> would typically expect 2 weeks for something like this unless it  
> corssed over a time like a IETF meeting or major holiday where they  
> migth expect to add another week to account for that.
>
> The specific technical details that I think are worth of review are  
> attached. I suspect I will have no problems with any of them but  
> these are things I think we should review.
>
>
>
> <diff.html>
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>
>> (As WG chair)
>>
>> We have had significant discussion on the lists since then of this  
>> draft, and discussion in SIP WG sessions, and all comments have  
>> been resolved.
>>
>> If you believe this document IS NOT ready to send to IESG, can you  
>> please indicate this to the list and the WG chairs by 12:00 midday  
>> UK time (7:00 am US Eastern Time) on 30th June 2006, giving  
>> technical justification for your objection.
>>
>> Please limit this thread to answering the question above. If you  
>> have other discussion relating to GRUU generally, then please use  
>> a different thread.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> 	Title		: Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent (UA)  
>> URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
>> 	Author(s)	: J. Rosenberg
>> Date: June 23, 2006 3:57:23 AM PDT
>>
>>
>>
>> <ATT46619>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ATT466197.txt>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:37:29 -0700

The last WGLC ended July 17th, July 2004.

I have no opinion on if the document is ready for WGLC - I have not  
reviewed it. But if you guys think it is, or Jonathan thinks it is,  
then I would totally be willing to believe it is ready for another  
WGLC. I have no problem with folks saying this document is ready to  
go - I'm downright ecstatic about that. My personal opinion is that  
it does need another WGLC with a reasonable amount of time tat takes  
into account that it is a very important, very large, very  
complicated document that has had many controversial changes. From a  
formal process point of view, I believe it is the Chairs decision  
when or if a document gets WGLC and they can choose not to if they  
want. If people had fixed some typos and added an example since the  
last WGLC, I would not care about review of it but I think this has  
had substantial changes.

On Jun 26, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> ongoing WGLC. That's what Keith was asking -- if you don't think  
> it's ready (and you don't) please let us know.
>
>> review all the changes it once it was done. Technically I doubt  
>> the WG needs to ever WGLC any document but the RAI WGs have had a  
>> long tradition of using WGLC and I think people have come to  
>> expect them. I also beilve that they improve document quality and  
>> also help judge if their is consensus on work. I suspect that  
>> people would typically expect 2 weeks for something like this  
>> unless it corssed over a time like a IETF meeting or major holiday  
>> where they migth expect to add another week to account for that.
>>
>> The specific technical details that I think are worth of review  
>> are attached. I suspect I will have no problems with any of them  
>> but these are things I think we should review.
>>
>>
>>
>> <diff.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>> We have had significant discussion on the lists since then of  
>>> this draft, and discussion in SIP WG sessions, and all comments  
>>> have been resolved.
>>>
>>> If you believe this document IS NOT ready to send to IESG, can  
>>> you please indicate this to the list and the WG chairs by 12:00  
>>> midday UK time (7:00 am US Eastern Time) on 30th June 2006,  
>>> giving technical justification for your objection.
>>>