[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Internal WG Review: Recharter of IP Telephony (iptel)




Henning Schultzerinne had a very long one which I'm unable to locate just now - it might never have made it out of the IAB review cycle, or my I-D archive may be incomplete.
It never made it out

I have 2 pdf files
  draft-schulzrinne-iptel-arch-00.pdf
and
  draft-schulzrinne-iptel-challenges-00.pdf

which were about as far as the work got.

If someone wants to review this work for the effort here I'm
happy to send them a copy

regards,

   Geoff



At 01:14 PM 18/05/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think Jonathan's text is quite sufficient for the charter. Its message (apart from what it says) is "we have thought about this, and can answer questions for more details" - which is important.

--On fredag, mai 16, 2003 16:29:48 -0500 "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:

Agreed that a charter probably isn't the right place to explain in detail
the delineation between ENUM, TRIP, SIP server location via DNS, and so
on. Personally, I think the text suggested by Jonathan below is useful,
but a more complete description of the difference between these
mechanisms is warranted. An Informational-track document explaining all
of this would be nice - I worked on something along these lines, though I
never completed it (I needed to add text about TRIP). If we need a WG to
take responsibility for producing such a document, I agree that IPTEL
would be a good choice.
Randy had a very short one published as draft-ymbk-enum-trip (July 2001).
Henning Schultzerinne had a very long one which I'm unable to locate just now - it might never have made it out of the IAB review cycle, or my I-D archive may be incomplete.

Resurrecting one and completing it might be worthwhile.

Harald