RE: Re: [Geopriv] How Location Conveyance specifies the allowed URI

I could be wrong, but I think it is possible to define such an extension
as not updating the original document.  Nearly every SIP extension
effectively modifies one or more ABNF lines in 3261, but none of them
are considered updates to 3261.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:28 PM
> To: Rosen, Brian; IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Re: [Geopriv] How Location Conveyance specifies the
> allowed URI
> 
> 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