Subject: Re: [dispatch] Domain Registration Draft draft-kaplan-dispatch-domain-registration

From: Jamie Palmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:16:36 -0700

I would support option #1.

regards,
Jamie Palmer

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:07 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [dispatch] Domain Registration Draft draft-kaplan-dispatch-
domain-registration

The SIP Forum has recently sent us the draft

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-domain-registration-00.txt

This draft is pretty close to what several vendors are doing in some
existing deployments. In my AD roll I have been trying to figure out
how to progress this draft. Some people have asked me to AD sponsor
it. I see the ways this draft could more forward are:

1) AD sponsor. I'm willing to do this if there is consensus in
dispatch that this is a good way to move forward.

2) Use the dispatch WG to spin up a new WG to deal with this.

3) remove the options tag and go to the independent stream

I expect that with both #1 and #2, the document will get roughly the
same review and #1 is less work for me and the IESG. What's your
thoughts on how we should move this forward?

Thanks, Cullen <RAI AD>

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: James Palmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:23:23 -0400

I would support Cullen's option #1

regards,
Jamie Palmer

>>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]  
>>> On
>>> To: [email-masked]
>>> [email-masked]