Re: [Sipping] Further proceeding with draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai--05

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

On Sep 3, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Elwell, John wrote:

> Cullen,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy at cisco.com]
> > Sent: 03 September 2008 17:15
> > To: Elwell, John
> > Cc: sipping
> > Subject: Re: [Sipping] Further proceeding with
> > draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai--05
> >
> >
> > On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:35 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> >
> > > I received no feedback in the changes made in draft-05
> > concerning the
> > > forward compatibility mechanism, nor on the particular
> > issue I asked
> > > for
> > > comments on:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg16105.html
> > > Therefore I assume these changes are acceptable.
> > >
> >
> > Uh, be careful with this sort of assumption. Unless you have
> > consensus
> > for significant technical changes, you should not be making
> > them to WG
> > documents.
> > I'm trying to separating technical changes from editorial
> > changes here - obviously I think the editor should just make
> > editorial
> > changes and technical changes which either have, or clearly would
> > have, census.  This change is not backwards compatible with
> > some 3325
> > implementations and I don't think you have consensus one way or the
> > other on it. Silence does not necessarily imply people agree - I
> > suspect few people have read this. Perhaps my recollection of
> > how this
> > went in the meeting is wrong - I have not gone back and
> > looked at the
> > notes.
> [JRE] I hope the changes reflect what we seemed to be reaching  
> consensus
> on in the meeting. Obviously I wanted to confirm that consensus on the
> mailing list, as well as confirming that I had implemented it  
> correctly
> in draft-05.
> However, looking at the minutes, I see it states "Another draft can
> address forward-compatibility issues...". I came away with the feeling
> that people wanted a forward compatibility requirement placed in the
> document right now, i.e., in the next draft, draft-05. I see now that
> the minutes can be interpreted a different way, i.e., in a completely
> separate draft. If I had misinterpreted the mood of the meeting on  
> this
> aspect, we can certainly go back to the text of 04. Other opinions?
> Nobody shouted when draft-05 appeared, which is why I sent the  
> reminder
> today.
>
>

Who knows what the minutes meant, as you point out could have been  
either :-) I assumed that it a different draft not a revision. I did  
not mean to make a big deal of it one way or other - I have not gone  
back looked an minutes, meeting recordings, mailing traffic, or even  
the changes made from 04 to 05. I just meant to say in general be  
careful of assuming silence is agrement - particular when it is prime  
vacation time and right after a meeting. Some times it is agreement,  
while other times that assumptions results in the draft getting  
exploded at the next meeting.



_______________________________________________
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