Subject: RE: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #2 - emergency calls

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:23:29 +0200

To summarise where we are on this one.

Looking at the thread, it appears that no one objected to the removal of
the material. There were some questions on what should be removed. This
has been discussed futher by the editors and review team and can be
summarised as (section numbers as in -07 version of
location-conveyance):

-	section 1: keep the paragraph, but to remove the word
"frequently" and strike the last sentence. 
-	section 4.3: already gone as a result of other decisions. 
-	section 6 would go in total as a result of this action.

There were concerns that the material would be directly copied into the
ECRIT documents.

Let me state that any material so moved will be rewritten by the
editor's of the ECRIT documents to correspond to the scope of those
documents. Naturally the editor's of the ECRIT documents concerned will
be bound by the normal consensus building activities of the ECRIT
working group, and it is appropriate for any member of the ECRIT WG to
comment on (or disagree with) that text when it appears. 

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:33 AM
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #2 - emergency calls
> 
> (As SIP WG chair)
> 
> During the review of the WGLC comments, we have identified 
> some issues where we need consensus calls on the list. These 
> are in one call per message.
> 
> There is an amount of text (primarily section 6) within 
> draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance related to emergency 
> calls. It is proposed to remove this text on the basis that 
> there are charter items within the IETF ECRIT working group 
> that fully specify this application of location conveyance to 
> this particular purpose. The editor's will make sure that all 
> the removed text is reflected in appropriately in the 
> concerned ECRIT documents.
> 
> We will assume that this removal represents WG consensus 
> unless we hear otherwise from the WG in 7 calendar days from 
> the posting of this message.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
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