Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT Status Update - December 2008 (esnet namespace)

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig at nsn.com>]

Hi James, 
 
>At 05:53 PM 12/30/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>8) draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace
>>
>>We had some discussions about this document triggered by mails around
>>IETF#73 asking for the purpose and the scope.
>>I read through the e-mail exchange but I need to read through some 
>>RFCs/drafts as well in order to summarize the topic.
>>
>>A few folks have provided feedback (James, Brian, Janet, Keith) but 
>>more reviews from the rest of the group would be useful.
>>
>>Action item: Hannes to summarize the discussions and to draw 
>a conclusion.
>
>Hannes - why are you artificially creating such a high hurdle 
>for this ID to progress?

Summarizing a discussion is not "a high hurdle". 

>
>The WG hummed for this ID to become a WG item in Dublin.

I know. Like the group did with a number of other items. 
Officially, the document is not a WG item yet given that we would
require the charter to change as mentioned at the last meeting. 

>
>There hasn't been one other opinion contrary to this (save for 
>yours) on the list or at the Minneapolis meeting.

Well. I raised several issues which I would like to summarize. 
To pick one "PSAP callback" where there does not seem to be agreement,
referencing Brian:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05686.html


> Therefore, 
>it is impossible to conclude with evidence that anyone other 
>than you are delaying this progression.

Delaying? Given that we have to change the charter first before this
document can actually be picked up as an item (like the other documents
as well) I am not delaying anything here. 

Getting the new charter approved is only possible if we are able to
finish our main items, as Jon says. Despite our pushing Phone BCP and
Framework are still not finished.

>
>Many have expressed in email to the list, and in person at 
>Minneapolis to you that you are not understanding the topic as 
>much as you believe (SIP signaling and SIP header usage, and 
>this includes the SIP chair that has given you his opinion in 
>front of others), and each of the rest of us (that have voiced 
>an opinion) are in unison in our understanding (and have 
>attempted nearly countless times to explain how you have a 
>misunderstanding of SIP communications).

Maybe I don't understand this particular item well enough. If I don't
understand it given that I am working in this space already for many
years gives me the impression that maybe I am not the only one. At least
in the past I was never wrong with such an assumption. 

I don't think it can be wrong to ask questions about documents we have
in the group (even if they appear irrelevant to the authors of the
mechanism as he knows it better than anybody else). 
 
>Furthermore - your co-chair does not agree with you, and 
>believes as others do that this ID is needed, necessary and 
>wants it to progress
>- including other SDOs and organizations (NENA for one) that 
>want to reference this document as an RFC.

I am actually participating in various NENA conf. calls and have
participated in discussions around resource priority for
citizen-to-authority emergency calls. I have not heard you on those
calls. 

In short, I am not delaying -- I am trying to understand. No reason to
worry. 

Ciao
Hannes

>
>James 
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit