gmane.ietf.sip archive

2919 archived articles, newest first (page 6 of 30). Latest articles →

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/ no longer updated
Wed, 20 May 2009 09:14:08 -0700
Brett Tate <[email protected]> • #22737
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-eku-05.txt
Wed, 20 May 2009 17:57:16 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22736
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs-04.txt
Wed, 20 May 2009 17:55:49 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22735
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-08.txt
Wed, 20 May 2009 17:54:58 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22734
New versions of domain-certs and sip-eku
Tue, 19 May 2009 09:25:40 -0500
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> • #22733
REVISED Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-outbound (Managing Client Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard
Tue, 12 May 2009 07:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
The IESG <[email protected]> • #22732
Fwd: Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-outbound (Managing Client Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard
Tue, 12 May 2009 15:31:35 +0200
Robert Sparks <[email protected]> • #22731
Re: Question about Accept-Language
Mon, 11 May 2009 15:49:32 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22730
Re: RFC 3261 Accept-Language change to allow empty
Mon, 11 May 2009 14:08:52 +0100
"Attila Sipos" <[email protected]> • #22729
RFC 3261 Accept-Language change to allow empty
Wed, 6 May 2009 10:23:25 -0500
"Rawsthorne, Alan \(Alan\)" <[email protected]> • #22728
Re: SIP WG closed (was RE: Question about Accept-Language)
Thu, 07 May 2009 08:25:09 -0500
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> • #22727
Re: SIP WG closed (was RE: Question about Accept-Language)
Thu, 7 May 2009 09:28:51 +0100
"Attila Sipos" <[email protected]> • #22726
Re: Question about Accept-Language
Thu, 7 May 2009 00:14:17 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22725
Question about Accept-Language
Wed, 6 May 2009 14:20:01 -0400
"Szilagyi, Mike" <[email protected]> • #22724
WG Action: Conclusion of Session Initiation Protocol (sip)
Fri, 1 May 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
IESG Secretary <[email protected]> • #22723
Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy (UA-Driven Privacy Mechanism for SIP) to Informational RFC
Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
The IESG <[email protected]> • #22722
Registration for SIPit 24 closes next week
Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:49:13 -0500
Robert Sparks <[email protected]> • #22721
SIPCORE -- If you're not subscribed, you're missing stuff
Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:39:45 -0500
Adam Roach <[email protected]> • #22720
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:00:30 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22719
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:00:20 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22718
Draft new version: draft-holmberg-sipcore-keep-00 (previously known as draft-holmberg-sip-keep)
Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:31:34 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22717
Linked minutes, slides, and audio recordings for SIP at IETF 74
Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:24:18 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22716
Future of this mailing list
Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:25:23 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22715
Draft SIP minutes for IETF 74 posted
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:36:32 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22714
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:07:15 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22713
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:41:17 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22712
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:18:18 -0500
Adam Roach <[email protected]> • #22711
Re: [Sip] Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:48:54 -0400
Munjo Yu <[email protected]> • #22710
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:46:59 -0600
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> • #22709
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:33:49 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22708
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:10:47 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22707
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:06:42 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22706
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:59:07 -0500
Adam Roach <[email protected]> • #22705
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:22:11 -0500
Adam Roach <[email protected]> • #22704
Re: Fwd: [RAI] SIP and SIPPING
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:49:15 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22703
Re: Fwd: [RAI] SIP and SIPPING
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:57:56 -0500
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> • #22702
Fwd: [RAI] SIP and SIPPING
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:50:31 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22701
SIPCORE and DISPATCH have been approved - Please see the RAI list for more info
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:12:10 -0500
Robert Sparks <[email protected]> • #22700
Re: bug in draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 grammar
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:45:07 -0400
"Dale Worley" <[email protected]> • #22699
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:49:24 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22698
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:47:55 -0600
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> • #22697
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:52:55 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22696
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:16:54 -0400
Anthony D Pike <[email protected]> • #22695
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:21:15 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22694
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:45:50 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22693
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:50:28 -0500
Adam Roach <[email protected]> • #22692
Re: bug in draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:27:32 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22691
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:53:08 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22690
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:45:20 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22689
Re: bug #1 in draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:25:07 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22688
Re: Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:19:39 -0400
"Dale Worley" <[email protected]> • #22687
bug #2 in draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:16:55 +0200
Florian Zumbiehl <[email protected]> • #22686
Re: Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:15:50 -0400
"Dale Worley" <[email protected]> • #22685
Re: bug #1 in draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:09:30 -0700
Rohan Mahy <[email protected]> • #22684
Re: bug in draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:06:02 -0400
"Dale Worley" <[email protected]> • #22683
bug #1 in draft-ietf-sip-outbound-16 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:50:19 +0200
Florian Zumbiehl <[email protected]> • #22682
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:22:04 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22681
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:20:15 -0500
Dean Willis <[email protected]> • #22680
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:38:01 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22679
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:20:04 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22678
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:52:38 -0400
Anthony D Pike <[email protected]> • #22677
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:38:50 -0700
"Dan Wing" <[email protected]> • #22676
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:18:47 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22675
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:12:18 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22674
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications suchas Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:11:43 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22673
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:10:32 -0400
Anthony D Pike <[email protected]> • #22672
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:02:54 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22671
Re: bug in draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:49:44 -0400
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> • #22670
Re: bug in draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:20:37 -0400
"Andrew Allen" <[email protected]> • #22669
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:15:58 -0400
Anthony D Pike <[email protected]> • #22668
bug in draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 grammar
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:54:31 +0200
Florian Zumbiehl <[email protected]> • #22667
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:39:47 +0200
Hans Erik van Elburg <[email protected]> • #22666
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:49:27 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22665
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:46:51 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22664
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:45:19 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22663
Re: Proposal of Non-Sequential Group Notion in ABNF w/ a SIP case
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:56:41 -0400
"Dale Worley" <[email protected]> • #22662
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:43:56 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22661
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:28:19 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22660
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:37:22 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22659
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:09:38 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22658
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:25:51 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22657
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:36:19 +0200
Hans Erik van Elburg <[email protected]> • #22656
Re: Clarification on RFC 4458: SIP URIs for Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:05:42 +0200
Hans Erik van Elburg <[email protected]> • #22655
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:03:40 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22654
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:09:58 -0500
"Francois Audet" <[email protected]> • #22653
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:49:44 -0700
Jon Peterson <[email protected]> • #22652
Registration for SIPIt 24 closes in 3 weeks.
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:22:21 -0500
Robert Sparks <[email protected]> • #22651
I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-199-08.txt
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] • #22650
Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-08
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:27:14 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22649
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:46:24 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22648
Re: draft-ietf-sip-199-07: 199 response and local ringtone generation
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:39:06 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22647
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:35:05 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22646
draft-ietf-sip-199-07: 199 response and local ringtone generation
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:18:12 +0200
Hans Erik van Elburg <[email protected]> • #22645
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:05:07 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22644
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:55:34 +0200
"Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email protected]> • #22643
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - comment onsection 7
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:47:55 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22642
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - comment onsection 7
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:41:54 +0200
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email protected]> • #22641
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:31:40 +0200
"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> • #22640
Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:05:32 +0200
"Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email protected]> • #22639
Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:10:14 +0100
"Elwell, John" <[email protected]> • #22638
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.