At 05:53 PM 12/30/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
8) draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace We had some discussions about this document triggered by mails around IETF#73 asking for the purpose and the scope. I read through the e-mail exchange but I need to read through some RFCs/drafts as well in order to summarize the topic. A few folks have provided feedback (James, Brian, Janet, Keith) but more reviews from the rest of the group would be useful. Action item: Hannes to summarize the discussions and to draw a conclusion.
Hannes - why are you artificially creating such a high hurdle for this ID to progress?
The WG hummed for this ID to become a WG item in Dublin.There hasn't been one other opinion contrary to this (save for yours) on the list or at the Minneapolis meeting. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude with evidence that anyone other than you are delaying this progression.
Many have expressed in email to the list, and in person at Minneapolis to you that you are not understanding the topic as much as you believe (SIP signaling and SIP header usage, and this includes the SIP chair that has given you his opinion in front of others), and each of the rest of us (that have voiced an opinion) are in unison in our understanding (and have attempted nearly countless times to explain how you have a misunderstanding of SIP communications).
Furthermore - your co-chair does not agree with you, and believes as others do that this ID is needed, necessary and wants it to progress - including other SDOs and organizations (NENA for one) that want to reference this document as an RFC.
James
_______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit