Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep

Hi,

Personally I have nothing against moving the keep-alive mechanism to
draft-keep, and I guess most people agree it is how it should have been
done.

However, we have previously agreed not to do it, so I hope we will not
spend lots of time to discuss it again.

Regards,

Christer


-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:54 AM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: Christer Holmberg; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep


On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Christer has updated the document based on the action item from 
> Wednesday's SIP session (chaired by SIPPING chairs and modeled as the 
> proposed DISPATCH WG).  If folks could please review the document and 
> raise any concerns on the document now, that would be appreciated. We 
> ask specifically for an answer to the question:  Do you support the 
> document being adopted as a WG document in RAI (WG tbd)?  A simple 
> "yes" is fine, however, if you don't think we should adopt this 
> document, could you please provide the reason.
>
>
>

So, given the outpouring of support, should we pull back the draft-
ietf-sip-outbound and re-write it to refer to the keepalive mechanism of
this draft instead of containing similar but not identical text?

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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