No this is a copy / paste error on my part which lost some
lines such that two items got conflated. The two entries
should correctly read:
draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-00
Candidate: Best Current Practice (we may downgrade / upgrade
this based on discussion of the contents)
Milestone for WGLC May 2008
Milestone for submission to IESG July 2008
Needs discussion of what we really need to say in such a
document
draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-01
Candidate: Informational
Milestone for WGLC September 2007
Dean Willis is PROTO document shepherd
Milestone for submission to IESG November 2007
So I am not currently proposing changing the milestones,
even though we have missed them (slightly). We have a number
of documents to WGLC following the IETF#70 meeting and media
security requirements is one of them. Therefore any comments
at this stage on the contents are entirely appropriate.
I will try and post a corrected set of status later.
Regards
Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig gmx.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:07 PM
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: [Sip] Milestone Change for Media Security
Requirements
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> you made a proposal for milestone updates.
> The milestone
draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-01
> got modified.
>
> Here are the details:
>
------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-01
> Candidate: Best Current Practice
> (we may downgrade / upgrade this based on discussion of
the
> contents) Milestone for WGLC May 2008 Milestone for
> submission to IESG July 2008 Needs discussion of what
we
> really need to say in such a document
>
------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> I got the impression that we do not have too many open
issues.
> * lawful interception
> * traversal of middleboxes
>
> We could give the first item a last chance (let's say
within a few
> weeks) and then we make a final decision.
> Regarding the second item: I believe that we can deal
with it
> fairly independently. There is a separate draft about
this
> story, namely
draft-sipping-stucker-media-path-middleboxes-00
>
> Hence, I believe that there is no reason to move the
> milestone for that document.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> PS: draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-01
should
> become an Informational RFC (not a BCP).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol
> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
