Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-elwell-sipping-update-pai-02

From: "Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:54:06 -0500

3325 is a core spec according to the hitchhikers guide criteria.

Jonathan R

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Sent:	Sunday, December 02, 2007 04:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Elwell, John
Cc:	sipping
Subject:	Re: [Sipping] draft-elwell-sipping-update-pai-02

On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Elwell, John wrote:

> On the
> other hand, given that PAI is part of "core SIP", it would make some
> sense for it to be standards track.

Just to keep me on the right path here. When you say "core SIP", how  
would you define that?

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:39:24 -0800

Ok, I just went and read hitchhiker again and saw it defines

    Core:  The essential SIP specifications that are expected to be
       utilized for every session or registration.

well I find this really scary in the same way that I find sipping-16  
scary. If we view that we are going to start seeing RFP that ask for  
all of "core SIP" as defined in hitchhikers, then this document is  
getting very much the wrong level of review and would probably would  
better be a BCP. I was under the impression these were more arranged  
in a way of just grouping into logical categories to help find them  
without making a value judgement about what RFC were needed and what  
was not.