Re: Re: [Geopriv] How Location Conveyance specifies the allowed URI
"James M. Polk" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 04:20 PM 7/27/2006 -0500, James M. Polk wrote: >>Can we accept this "allowed-URI" proposal and move on? Does it have to >>be standards track, or is Informational okay? > >A vote for Standards Track, as this ensures IETF LC for everyone's chance >at a proposal., also so some other WG doesn't attempt to slip something by >anyone (meaning "by Geopriv") As a WG chair, I should know this off the top of my head, but I'm bewildered by some of the comments here (and in another area), therefore confused... I believe that each subsequent schema proposed would be an official 'update' to this SIP RFC (to be), which is Standards Track, meaning I don't believe an INFO RFC can officially 'update' a Standards Track RFC. This would mean updating this RFC (to be) would take a Standards Track RFC, if my math is right... >>I would think >>informational is okay, provided geopriv reviews. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip