Subject: Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance -03 submitted

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:53:25 -0700

Andy asks if Geopriv objects to adopting this document.  It would
make sense for us in terms of its work, and I support our working
on this.  The glitch will come when we try to finish off
the parts which create a new SIP header, option tag and error
code, which can only be done by the SIP WG, per RFC 3427.

In the past, we've had AD negotiation (mine) where a non-SIP
WG got a fast-tracking, cooperating review that just checked
over SIP extensions in a draft to see that they were OK after non-
extension work was done.  Maybe Cullen can help us borrow this draft and
work this way.

(Hopeful)

Allison

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:29:50 -0400

To be clear,  I was just wondering if there were any objections to  
GEOPRIV adopting this document... as in, I wanted to know what issues  
existed or might be caused.  If the document is to move working  
groups, the first step is to understand the problems we are currently  
having with progressing this document and the problems we may have by  
moving it.

We'll have to confer with the SIP wg and ADs, but I think Allison's  
idea is the best and fastest way to move forward.

Is there an issue tracker for this document?  That would most likely  
help.

-andy