----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:14
PM
Subject: [dispatch] DREGS Ad Hoc
minutes
DREGS Adhoc
Thursday 12 November 2009, 11:30 – 1:00
Chairs: Eric Burger and Mary Barnes
Scribes: Shida Schubert and Jim McEachern
John Elwell – Charter Discussion.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/dispatch-6.ppt
Jon Peterson reacted to the John’s statement that
“decided we needed a new WG” and said that he had suggested it perhaps should
be in DRINKS. Was concerned about
the presumption of what needs to be done to address the open issue.
Cullen:
the purpose of dispatch is to recommend what should be done. So we could recommend it go to DRINKS
or wherever. Let’s see what we
recommend.
Clarified that the proposal was that this should be looked
at, not that a WG was needed.
Trying to standardize a uniform way for PBXs to register
their domain. Today everyone does
it their own way, even though they are all very similar.
Proposing to use REGISTER with an added header for
requesting domain registration.
They are proposing this approach because it builds on what is already
widely deployed.
Adam Roach:
Are we really proposing to write the use of REGISTER in the
charter? Answer: Yes. Adam stated that he was not prepared
to have that discussion today because he thought it would be discussed in the
WG. This feels like “let’s ratify
this draft” rather than “let’s work on this problem”.
Spencer Dawkins: the intent is not to ratify
existing draft.
Note: In spite of Spencer’s statement, the
ensuing discussion made it very clear that for at least some of the authors,
the intent was in fact very much to ratify this draft, or something very near
it. Apparently the initial
charter draft did not mention REGISTER and it was included because SIP Forum
participants explicitly asked for it to be added.
Eric: the subject of whether or not REGISTER should
be included in the charter has been discussed on the list, but there is not
consensus
Someone stated that REGISTER was proposed because “that is
what is implemented” and we need to align with those implementations to be
relevant. Jon countered
that earlier it had been stated that the entire reason for this is that there
are multiple ways this is implemented and that we need a standard to get
interoperability. So if it is
being done multiple ways today, the argument that REGISTER needs to be in the
charter to align with deployed equipment, simply does not fly.
Cable Labs supported the use of REGISTER because
that is what they use in their specifications.
Jim McEachern & Adam Roach both pointed out that
even if you remove the word REGISTER from the charter, it does not mean that
the eventual solution will have REGISTER. The bulk of the objections (dare I say
the allergic reaction?) is to the fact that the solution (REGISTER) is being
specified in the charter, when we should be simply defining the problem we are
trying to solve.
Anwar Siddiqi Asked about the definition of small –
medium business, and said that this will not apply to large enterprises since
they will never give their register information to the SP. Therefore why not make it
optional.
Markus Isomaki, Nokia: What does this imply about the
addresses of the terminals behind the PBX? Answer: UA registers with the
PBX, but this work deals with the PBX registering with the SP. It is designed to help the SP work out
where to send requests to “example.com”.
Jon Peterson:
Charter scope question. Is
the charter focused on the specific problem on the slide, or the more general
problem? (Note: I think this was referring to the bullets specifying “a
header field for requesting domain registration” and “a SIP option tag to
detect non-support of this mechanism”.) Answer: The more general
one. (Note: I think this meant the general problem
of PBXs registering…)
Jon Peterson:
The only way this charter will get approved is by taking REGISTER out
of the draft. Lots of nods to
that.
Spencer:
If this looks like tweaking existing implementations, it will get more
interest than if it looked like a new method. Preference is to be up front about
this.
Cullen (channeling Hadriel): If Hadriel were here he would insist
it must be REGISTER or it will never be deployed.
Cullen: would the possible solution space now
include dynamic dns? The only
reason to specify a solution in the charter is to explicitly exclude alternate
classes of solution – isn’t it?
Chris Stanley – cable labs. We need to deploy this for businesses
and need to move quickly. (And
REGISTER is the mechanism we use.)
Adam Roach:
how far are we going to go down this path of specifying the answer in
the charter? If we allow it for
REGISTER for this WG, what other things are we going to do it for?
Cullen as AD:
He was the one who earlier encouraged them to be very specific to see
if they could get consensus on the approach to shorten the process, even
though he suspected the proposal would get the reaction that it is currently
getting. However, if the group
cannot get consensus to specify the solution in the charter, then the only
approach is to remove it. This is
clearly the case.
Hum:
Should we leave the charter exactly as it is? Result: Moderate hum
Hum:
Should we leave the charter largely as is, but remove the solution (REGISTER)
from the charter. Result:
Strong hum.
Discussed a vote on “Is there a critical mass in the IETF
to work on this problem?”, but instead decided on the following wording.
Hum:
Does anyone think that we don’t have the critical mass and the
expertise to tackle this.
Result: no one
objected. So consensus for
this.
Hum: is the IETF the place to work on this? Answer: yes
Note: The
following happened after the meeting had officially closed, but is included
here because it pointed toward a possible way forward.
Jon: Discussion
of the precedent setting risks of just adopting an existing solution. One way forward may be to think about
this as a telephone number problem rather than a domain problem, which would
make it a much easier problem. If
we can scope it that way then it will make it a much quicker problem to
solve.
Alan
Johnston: All the SIP
Forum discussion is in fact about telephone numbers, so restricting it to
telephone numbers is what we are looking for
Cullen: Recognize that we do need to find ways
to work faster. “If you send me a
charter by midnight tonight, I will have it on the agenda for the next IESG
meeting”
Meeting officially closed.
Since we had time, we had an open discussion of how to
make progress…
Discussion of what would be realistic dates for this? The discussion indicated that March
and June might be more believable dates.
Cullen:
Recognize that we do need to find ways to work faster. “If you send me a charter by midnight
tonight, I will have it on the agenda for the next IESG meeting”
Robert Sparks:
Recipe for success in SDOs cooperating is having a significant overlap
of common participants working on the problem. He is concerned that the overlap is
not enough.
Spencer:
Last SIP Forum meeting had 12 people and 7 of them were also in the
IETF. Is that enough?
Jon: Discussion of the precedent setting risks of
just adopting an existing solution.
One way forward may be to think about this as a telephone number
problem rather than a domain problem, then it is a much easier problem. If we can scope it that way then it
will make it a much easier problem to solve.
Alan Johnston:
All the SIP Forum discussion is in fact about telephone numbers, so
restricting it to telephone numbers would be acceptable.
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing
list
dispatch at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch