Subject: [Sip] Should service route discover be standards track or p-header

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:40:30 -0500

Should the SIP Service route Discovery draft be an informational
P-header or should it be standards track? Some have argued that it is
more general than usual for P-headers. It seems to me to be useful
whenever it is useful for a registrar to return routing infromation that
UAs may use when they want request routing services from the domain
served by that registrar.

Opinions?

See:

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-willis-sip-scvrtdisco-06.tx
t

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
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: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:58:48 -0400

No, I think it should stay a P- header. Then, we will hopefully discover 
that it is generally useful and thus show that scarlet-letter headers 
are a flawed idea. All the other poor P- headers will then look up to 
this one and get some hope in their purgatory that redemption is possible.

---

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:32:47 -0700 (PDT)

It seems that the applicability of the
"Service Route Discovery" draft would be the
same as the "Header Field for Registering
Non-Adjacent Contacts" draft. Is there a
reason one should be a P-header and the other
should not?

/sean

> Sip mailing list 
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---

From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:04:26 -0500

I raised the follwing on July 9:
> Should the SIP Service route Discovery draft be an 
> informational P-header or should it be standards track? Some 
> have argued that it is more general than usual for P-headers. 
> It seems to me to be useful whenever it is useful for a 
> registrar to return routing infromation that UAs may use when 
> they want request routing services from the domain served by 
> that registrar.

Almost all response were in favor of making this standards track.

Several people dissented with arguments along the lines of "Let's make
it a P-header so that we can use this as a test case for proving that
P-headers might not be a good idea". While I'm not entirely opposed to
this sort of protest action, it doesn't seem right to me in this case.

So, I think we have a rough consensus for taking this work onto
standards track.

I believe very little change is needed to the existing document to adapt
it for standards-track -- basically, delete the P-, and update the
references to include 3261. The draft has already had extensive review
within the working group, so I think we should be able to complete a new
WGLC fairly easily. I would suggest that we adopt it as a charter item
with a milestone of delivery to IESG in August, with expected delivery
being "very early August".

Comments?

--
Dean