Re: New version posted: draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt

Christer,

Certainly there is no problem with continuing to discuss that.
But I didn't see any reason to mention it in this draft any longer.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The rejecting PRACK offer is still "ongoing", but unfortuantely I have not had time to do much onit lately - mostly due to INFO.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat [[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 7:48 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: sipping
> Subject: [Sipping] New version posted:  draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt
> 
> I just posted a new version of the offeranswer draft.
> This version is intended to resolve all outstanding issues.
> 
> Here is a summary of substantial changes made:
> 
> - the open issues that were previously in section 6 were
>    removed. The doc has been updated as needed to be consistent
>    with conclusions about how to deal with those issues.
>    Specifically:
> 
>    - Rejecting PRACK offer has simply been dropped.
>      There has been no ongoing interest in no normative work
>      to support doing that.
> 
>    - Commit/Rollback of Offer/Answer on Unsuccessful re-INVITE
> Transaction has been resolved by reference to
>      draft-camarillo-sipcore-reinvite-01. New text referencing
>      that has been added at multiple places in the document.
> 
>    - Loosening requirement for Offer in a Reliable Response:
>      Again there has been no indication of intent to do anything
>      in this space, so the topic has simply been dropped.
> 
>    - Requesting Hold while already on Hold:
>      This was already addressed in the main body of the document.
>      The issue was whether this was appropriate, since it rests on
>      the interpretation of certain text in 3261 being non-normative.
>      That assumption has been restated in the main body.
>      I'm unaware of any argument to that in over two years.
> 
> - The recommendations for addition of new o/a usage in sip
>    (prior section 7) has also been dropped. While these may have
>    been helpful during discussion of the draft, they aren't
>    helpful after it is finalized.
> 
> - I rearranged the order of authors since Takuya has been unavailable
>    to work on it for some time. However I have retained him as an author
>    because the preponderance of the text is still his.
> 
> In addition there hare assorted miscellaneous minor cleanups.
> 
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
> 
> [email protected] wrote:
>> New version (-11) has been submitted for draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt.
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt
>> Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
>>
>> Diff from previous version:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11
>>
>> IETF Secretariat.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
> Use [email protected] for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments of core SIP