gmane.ietf.sip archive
2919 archived articles, newest first (page 8 of 30). Latest articles →
Re: comments on draft-barnes-sip-rfc4244bis-00.txt
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:48:35 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:30:49 -0600Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:12:24 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:06:07 -0600Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:23:27 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:09:11 +0000Re: Media vs Signaling identity (was Re: francois' comments andwhy RFC4474 not used in the field)
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:20:46 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:33:44 +0100Re: Media vs Signaling identity (was Re: francois' comments andwhy RFC4474 not used in the field)
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:33:43 +0100Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:30:42 +0200I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-199-07.txt
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 00:00:01 -0700 (PDT)Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:58:12 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:52:46 -0500WGLC comments on draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:03:45 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:24:08 -0600Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:00:54 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:31:47 -0600Re: Media vs Signaling identity (was Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field)
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:31:50 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:14:56 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:51:35 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:45 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:42:53 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:41:11 -0500Re: secure-call-id vs. session-id
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:08:22 +0200secure-call-id vs. session-id
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:26:51 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:27:50 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:15:03 -0400Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:22:03 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:02:25 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:55:41 -0400Media vs Signaling identity (was Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field)
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:06:52 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:06:16 +0100Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:49:06 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:39:24 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:15:49 -0700Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:07:44 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:20:42 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:53:07 -0700Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:12:48 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:03:29 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:08:21 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:58:32 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:55:39 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:48:10 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:25:44 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:57:40 +0100Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:57:08 +0100Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:56:30 +0100Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:55:50 +0100Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:48:28 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:01:24 +0100Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:51:26 -0700Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:48:49 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:25:11 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:09:16 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:44:13 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:40:38 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:29:35 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:27:32 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:33:53 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:59:51 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:18:23 -0500Re: The problem with draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:18:14 +0200Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:09:54 -0500Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:02:37 -0400Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:54:47 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:46:44 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:32:50 -0500Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:17:41 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:00:11 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:50:56 -0400Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:30:03 -0700Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:08:43 -0500Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:55:39 -0500Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:53:42 -0500Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:53:24 +0200Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:38:04 +0200Re: The problem with draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:59:03 +0100Re: draft-kaplan-sip-session-id-02
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:42:10 +0100Re: B2BUA's changing call-id's: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:49:13 +0100Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:31:50 -0700Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:33:18 -0500Re: The problem with draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:56:15 +0100francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:02:29 +0100Re: [Geopriv] Geo URI and privacy URI
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:27:29 -0400Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:28:31 -0400B2BUA's changing call-id's: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:25:03 -0400Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:19:24 -0400Completion of draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-06
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:54:24 +0100Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:19:55 -0700Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:47:10 +0100Re: The problem with draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:13:29 +0100Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:49:25 +0200Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:27:19 -0500Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:03 -0000Re: Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:33:36 +0100Re: Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:08:01 -0400Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:14:47 +0100Re: New version of draft-holmberg-sip-keep
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:14:19 -0700Re: Is REFER within dialog part of INVITE or subscription usage? (was RE: SIP INFO)
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:13:34 -0700
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.