Subject: Re: [Speermint] draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines to a WG item?

From: "David Hancock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:10:45 -0700

Victor,

I don't have any objection to adding this, but would like to better
understand the use-cases/call-types that might use this extension. For
example, is this extension used within the scope of the basic call types
& features currently listed in section-1.1, or do I need to increase the
scope? Does everyone agree with this scope-increase? 

Also, do you think support should be mandatory or optional? For example,
do you think the sending SBE to include the 'resource-priority' option
tag in the Supported header of every message?  If support is optional,
what should the draft say about this extension?

Thanks

David

Subject: Re: [Speermint] draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines to a
WG item? 

From: Victor Pascual Avila <victor.pascual.avila at gmail.com
<mailto:[email-masked]> > 

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:14:46 +0100
 
While "emergency calls" is not addressed in the document, IMHO it
would be useful to define whether the Resource-Priority header field
should be honored, specially in section 4.5.2
 
Thanks,
-Victor
 
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jason Livingood
<jason_livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> At the last meeting we had a request to make
> draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-01 an official working group
item.
>  I didn't hear any loud objections to that but wanted to ask again
here.  If
> you have any concerns about whether this should become a WG, please
advise.
> 
> Thanks
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> Speermint at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> 
>