Subject: Re: [siprec] #28: Do we need REQ-010 on redirection

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:28:25 -0000

#28: Do we need REQ-010 on redirection
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
 Reporter:  john.elwell@…                       |       Owner:  krehor@…        
     Type:  defect                              |      Status:  new             
 Priority:  minor                               |   Milestone:                  
Component:  Requirements                        |     Version:                  
 Severity:  Active WG Document                  |    Keywords:                  
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------

Comment(by john.elwell@…):

 I have not seen any discussion on this. My proposal would be to delete
 REQ-010.

 John

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/28#comment:1>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>

---

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:55:18 -0000

Comment(by dave.smith@…):

 I agree to remove.
 This req't seems to be a very basic/obvious part of existing SIP
 protocol...it seems remedial and not necessary as a req't for SIPREC.
 I don't see a need for the reworded option either, which seems to be about
 High Availability, which i believe is not precluded in our existing
 work....and it is indicated to already be fundamental to SIP.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/28#comment:2>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>

---

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:50:59 -0000

Type:  defect                              |      Status:  assigned        
Changes (by krehor@…):

  * status:  new => assigned

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/28#comment:3>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>