Subject: [p2p-sip] P2P and 911 (again)

From: RoyR at saic-abingdon.com (Roy, Radhika (AEAD))
Date: Mon Sep 12 16:08:10 2005

It looks like that p2p-SIP BOF did not explain enough why it needs to form the new WG. Let us discuss the necessity for forming a new WG and find out the probable work items.

However, like many other items, whether E911 and CALEA will be a part of the p2p-SIP WG is a different story.

So, if the new WG needs to be formed, it must justify the items other than E911 and CALEA.

Best regards,
Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dean Willis
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:55 PM
To: Roy, Radhika (AEAD)
Cc: [email-masked]; Stastny Richard; Tschofenig, Hannes
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] P2P and 911 (again)

Nope. We're supposed to discuss the objectives, and decide whether or 
not it really does require new work outside the scope of existing WGs, 
and if so, exactly what that new scope should be. If this leads us to 
the formation of a new working group, that's fine -- but forming a new 
working group is NOT the only reasonable outcome.

--
Dean

On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Roy, Radhika ((AEAD)) wrote:

> Hi, all:
> ?
> Is it not the case that SIP P2P BOF is supposed to explain why we need 
> to establish a new SIP P2P WG because it requires new P2P protocol 
> developments what SIP WG cannot do?
> ?
> Best regards,
> Radhika
>
> From: [email-masked] on behalf of Stastny Richard
> Sent: Thu 8/18/2005 10:24 AM
> To: Brijesh Kumar; Juha Heinanen; Tschofenig, Hannes
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] P2P and 911 (again)
>
>
> Finally somebody came up with a use case for SIP P2P
> Congratulations ;-)
>
> With all these discussions on SIP P2P service providers,
> E911 and not to mention CALEA I had basically no idea
> what SIP P2P can provide what pure SIP cannot provide
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Stastny
> OeFEG
> tel:+43 664 420 4100
> enum:+43 780 203 211
> callto://fordprefect
> http://voipandenum.blogspot.com
>