Re: [Sipping] Liaison Statement on offer/answer procedures

[Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com>]

I agree that sipping is the right place for the work, and that it ought 
to be done, eventually. It hasn't seemed like especially pressing, but 
apparently 3gpp thinks otherwise.

I agree that, at least on the surface, it is less important which 
solution is chosen than it is that *some* solution be chosen. But there 
are pros and cons to the two obvious approaches, so it is best to do 
more than just flip a coin.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> the SIPPING WG has received the following LS from 3GPP:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/444/
> 
> We have talked to the MMUSIC chairs (MMUSIC was in the cc: of this LS) 
> and they are OK with working on this LS in SIPPING. In any case, we will 
> send our answer to the MMUSIC folks for comments before getting back to 
> 3GPP.
> 
> This LS has to do with the offer/answer method, which was developed by 
> MMUSIC, but is also related to the SIP machinery associated to 
> offer/answer (i.e., rejected re-INVITEs). That is why we consider 
> SIPPING the right place to discuss it.
> 
> Comments on this LS are appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> SIPPING co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sip at ietf.org 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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip at ietf.org for new developments of core SIP