From andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com Tue Apr 24 09:05:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695AB11E80A5 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:05:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eKMnsOk97ldF for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3AA11E80A2 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MCHP064A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.63]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 6412323F0506 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP064A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.63]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:05:18 +0200 From: "Hutton, Andrew" To: "siprec@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:05:17 +0200 Thread-Topic: IETF83 Minutes. Thread-Index: Ac0iNAqR9K+7ktUJQ1K/T2TjYrB3Hw== Message-ID: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E3129917FA5B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [siprec] IETF83 Minutes. X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:05:20 -0000 Brian has posted draft minutes at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minute= s/minutes-83-siprec.pdf. Please provide any comments. Regards Andy From andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com Mon Apr 30 06:23:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AB921F8592 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jPvrwT0l2bB8 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76B521F8582 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MCHP064A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.63]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 9917C23F0403 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:23:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP064A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.63]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:23:34 +0200 From: "Hutton, Andrew" To: "siprec@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:23:31 +0200 Thread-Topic: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt in its own right. Thread-Index: Acz+BNDnrr4sVn7wTIWf9MiV5/IeIAozwQ1Q Message-ID: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E3129928266C@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> References: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E312946BC60B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> In-Reply-To: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E312946BC60B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt in its own right. X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:23:36 -0000 Hi All, Following the discussion we had at IETF83 there does not seem any consensus= for adopting the RTP Considerations as separate draft to the protocol draf= t so I think we need to go ahead and merge draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec into = draft-siprec-protocol. Regards Andy (SIPREC Co-Chair). > -----Original Message----- > From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Hutton, Andrew > Sent: 09 March 2012 14:57 > To: siprec@ietf.org > Subject: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt in > its own right. >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > So far we always planned to at some point merge > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 with our > protocol draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-siprec-protocol- > 03). >=20 > However maybe it would be a good idea to keep these separate and adopt > draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-*. I envisage that it would maintain its > current states as "informational" only. >=20 > I would be interested in the opinions of the group on this. >=20 > Regards > Andy (SIPREC Co-Chair). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > siprec mailing list > siprec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec From eckelcu@cisco.com Mon Apr 30 09:09:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0D221F8704 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7F3jV2RxZaZB for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2243D21F8701 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=2183; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335802169; x=1337011769; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=BWZ0rvmO4kVMXLqvWkEz2dPzoasm6AJEnmick15JXUQ=; b=I3KjQovJVPeAR0lmO1BwgsZqpC+rj8nXVbc8grxHCU9Qtb+d2Nn9cop8 wM/q18XNOw2n70nvesO0ee0K8VFjN/L/N83m6/Mk1LMdweOhtG5NHsxxx UjwM3u34bWO7CKuHDLxfJNcPS7uSr0IQ9d/jDiEIQlaVCSrVWIiBxoIGy 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAEW4nk+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABEr0iDAIEHggkBAQEEAQEBDwEdCjQXBAIBCBEEAQELBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIGodqAQuaGJ9xkD9jBIhkjiuNSIFpgwg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,505,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="42721224" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2012 16:09:28 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3UG9S3n018996; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:09:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:09:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:09:29 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E3129928266C@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt in its own right. Thread-Index: Acz+BNDnrr4sVn7wTIWf9MiV5/IeIAozwQ1QAAXIqzA= References: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E312946BC60B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E3129928266C@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "Hutton, Andrew" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2012 16:09:28.0566 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EB84960:01CD26EB] Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt in its own right. X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:09:29 -0000 Hi Andy, I am fine with your proposal. I think the best way to do this would be to add the content from draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec into section 7 of draft-siprec-protocol, with editorial changes only. That way we have a baseline of the RTP recommendations within the protocol document that can be extended in subsequent updates to draft-siprec-protocol based on the agreements from IETF 83. Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Hutton, Andrew > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:24 AM > To: siprec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt > in its own right. >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > Following the discussion we had at IETF83 there does not seem any > consensus for adopting the RTP Considerations as separate draft to the > protocol draft so I think we need to go ahead and merge draft-eckel- > siprec-rtp-rec into draft-siprec-protocol. >=20 > Regards > Andy (SIPREC Co-Chair). >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: siprec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:siprec-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Hutton, Andrew > > Sent: 09 March 2012 14:57 > > To: siprec@ietf.org > > Subject: [siprec] draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 - Should we adopt in > > its own right. > > > > Hi All, > > > > So far we always planned to at some point merge > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-03 with our > > protocol draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-siprec- > protocol- > > 03). > > > > However maybe it would be a good idea to keep these separate and > adopt > > draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-*. I envisage that it would maintain its > > current states as "informational" only. > > > > I would be interested in the opinions of the group on this. > > > > Regards > > Andy (SIPREC Co-Chair). > > > > _______________________________________________ > > siprec mailing list > > siprec@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec > _______________________________________________ > siprec mailing list > siprec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec