[SIPForum-techwg] Restart SIP Forum last call on SIPconnect

[Michael Procter]

OK - that's fine.  The comments have waited for almost a year so far - I
can't see waiting a little longer causing a problem.

Best regards,

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard at shockey.us]
> Sent: 19 October 2007 15:47
> To: Michael Procter; 'Jay Batson'; 'Tech Forum WG SIP'
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Restart SIP Forum last call on
> SIPconnect
> 
> As Jay mentioned .. the first order of business is to get the 1.0
> version of
> the specification finished and approved by the SIPForum board.
> 
> As I mentioned in my earlier message there is every intent to enhance
> the
> specification further, and the items you note are a logical start to
> determining the requirements for a 1.1 or 2.0 type specification.
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-
> bounces at sipforum.org]
> >  On Behalf Of Michael Procter
> >  Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:52 AM
> >  To: Jay Batson; Tech Forum WG SIP
> >  Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Restart SIP Forum last call on
> >  SIPconnect
> >
> >  I made a comment in November last year concerning IP addresses in
> Via
> >  headers:
> >  http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/2006-November/000994.html
> >
> >  Chris Sibley acknowledged it as being worth fixing:
> >  http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/2006-November/000997.html
> >
> >  Scott Lawrence extended my observation to include Record-Route
> >  headers:
> >  http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/2006-December/000998.html
> >
> >  Are there plans to update the document in the light of these
> comments?
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >
> >  Michael
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  techwg mailing list
> >  Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> >  Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> >  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg