certs
- polled how many read the document.
- consensus reached to go to the IESG

consent-framework
- not enough people have reviewed the document
- ~ 30 people care about the document
- chairs recommend people who care review the document

outbound
- no objection to use of 430 Flow Failed response code
- Bug A: need to mention rport: agreed that in addition to adding text
for rport, also provide a pointer to the NAT scenarios document.
- issue B: verify outbound support on first hop or all hops? support
for only require first hop and registrar. no objections to this
option.
- issue C: max-flows parameter: propose defer. much discussion about
whether or not
 - working group in favor of deferring max-flows parameter with small
minority disagreeing
 - Christer/Rohan suggest to use 430 to reject additional flow
registrations when they occur and the home proxy wishes to reject
- Issue D / E skipped
- Issue F: Detecting instance-id binding rules: rohan proposed take
issue to the list. AD (Cullen) asked to make a decision on this today.
Decision: will not do anything on this issue in the doc. fix it later
if required
- Issue 3G: Binding behavior without flow-tokens
 - 3GPP doesn't want to be forced to use flow-tokens all of the time
 - options 1) leave draft as is 2) relax flow token language slightly
3) replace reg-id with two new parameters
    - option 2 make flow token language fuzzy
    - option 3 splits into path-id which means I want this path to
the instance stored, ob in a contact means UA wants outbound
flow-token behavior
- wg consensus on option 2.
- rohan agreed to post changes asap to the list

domain-certs
- much argument about this work not being required or it being
obviated by other work
- asked interested parties to post to the list and to arrange a
follow-up call sometime in the next two weeks to resolve the issues

connection-reuse
applicability of this document, in light of JDR's work on mid-dialog,
needs to be discussed on the DNS conference call
- question to the wg: should we continue with this work if we can only
half the number of TLS connections between proxies that aren't
separated by NAT. about 5 to 1 opposed continuing the work. take the
question to the mailing list.

sip-sips-guidelines
- item 1 out of place - echoes what is in 3261. could provide a
reminder in the doc
- should keep 2 and 3
- need more thought on 4. should be couched in should terms, giving
more discussion on what would happen if you don't follow the
recommendations.

gruu
- comfortable with the privacy model in the doc: lots of yes, more
don't knows. conclusion is that people need more time to think.
- "all in favor of keeping the gruu parameters in gruu-11" - yes:
small #, no: small #, don't care: large number