Subject: Re: [siprec] Requirements #36 (closed): Do we need REQ-030 on identifying a session as an RS?

From: "siprec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:24:02 -0000

#36: Do we need REQ-030 on identifying a session as an RS?

Changes (by krehor@…):

  * status:  assigned => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Based on discussion on the mailing list, REQ-030 is retained but reworded
 in draft-ietf-siprec-req-04.

 Ken

-- 
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
 Reporter:  john.elwell@…                       |        Owner:  krehor@…        
     Type:  defect                              |       Status:  closed          
 Priority:  minor                               |    Milestone:                  
Component:  Requirements                        |      Version:                  
 Severity:  Active WG Document                  |   Resolution:  fixed           
 Keywords:                                      |  
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/36#comment:7>
siprec <http://tools.ietf.org/siprec/>

---

From: "Ken Rehor (krehor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:24:43 -0700

Based on discussion on the mailing list, REQ-030 is retained but reworded in draft-ietf-siprec-req-04.

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: siprec issue tracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:51 AM
> To: Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]; john.elwell@siemens-
> enterprise.com
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [siprec] #36: Do we need REQ-030 on identifying a session as an
> RS?
> 
>      Type:  defect                              |      Status:  assigned
>  Severity:  Active WG Document                  |    Keywords:
>   * status:  new => assigned
> 
> 
> --
> Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/siprec/trac/ticket/36#comment:6>