Re: [Speermint] draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines

["Uzelac, Adam" <Adam.Uzelac at globalcrossing.com>]

Theo,

I am quite following your train of thought, but really would like to understand what you are saying - how does stating that support for TCP, TLS, etc (your list below) NOT translate into endpoint requirements?  This is not a leading question, but a request for clarification.

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: speermint-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:speermint-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Theo Zourzouvillys
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:45 AM
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: speermint at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines
> 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Elwell, John
> <john.elwell at siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:
> > By all means charter a work item, but I would
> > prefer to see a further revision that takes into account the feedback
> > from today's meeting, in particular making it less prescriptive,
> before
> > adopting the draft as a working group document in fulfilment of the
> > charter item.
> 
> I would like to echo this sentiment.
> 
> ... I have no objection in the general goals of it, but i strongly
> believe it should be focusing at the lower levels and general
> *interconnect*/hop-by-hop stuff - things such as supporting TCP,
> mutual TLS, NAPTR, overload control, etc rather than the endpoint
> requirements to flow across those interfaces.
> 
> 
> ~ Theo
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> Speermint at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint