[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary

At 03:00 PM 5/26/2009, Robert Sparks wrote:

No problem with the question - I've tried to describe this process in
previous reports.
yeah -- I remember something about this, and I know it was thorough, but didn't remember the details.
I used an automated survey tool for awhile, and listed lots of RFCs/ drafts to help find when something started to emerge into 
implementation space.
The problem that I ran into was that the lists got long enough that
people would quit responding (or at a minimum complain mightily).


yep - this was what I was afraid of


I also discovered that I either had to leave an "I don't know" answer
or allow leaving the question blank (which would get the majority) or
folks who couldn't get the answer quickly would make something up so
they could finish the survey.
Further, there was a measurable problem with people assuming they knew
what a draft was from its name (figuring out who implements draft-ietf- sip-outbound from those who could just configure outbound proxies 
sometimes takes pointed questions).


that's also a fair point



So for the last few events, I've gone back to a manual survey based on
a short list of questions tuned by what people are asking about and
where the edges were at recent events.
I _should_ have asked about History-Info this time, but didn't (an
unintentional omission).

For future events, if there's a particular draft people are interested
in asking about, doing so on-list about the time registration for the
event closes would be very helpful.

RjS


On May 26, 2009, at 2:45 PM, James M. Polk wrote:


Which begs the question, Robert - (and I'm not evaluating you - just
wanting to know):

Do you (somehow) list all the SIP (and related) RFCs on some
questionnaire that participants fill out stating which they have
implemented part or all of?

I understand the information you have gotten us, which is great, and
am curious about the non-mainstream RFCs we have that may be not
being reported because they aren't asked about.

Also, I can understand if this fact finding would make it too
cumbersome or somehow untrustworthy in the data reported.

Thanks

James

At 11:53 AM 5/26/2009, Francois Audet wrote:

We do know that there is a significant number of commercial
implementations of History-Info however.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rai-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 08:10
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: rai at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
>
>
> On May 24, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> >
> > On May 21, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >
> >> SIPit 24 was hosted by JPNIC and NICT the week of May
> 18-22, 2009 in
> >> Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan.
> >
> > Thank you for the report. Did we get a sense of support for
> History-
> > Info?
>
> I didn't see any History-Info at the event at all. (But I
> didn't ask team-by-team).
> Note that we had fewer proxies than usual, and some of the
> known-to- have-HI implementations were not present.
> Not as precise an answer as I would like, but its safe to say
> that implementation of History-Info is not pervasive at this point.
>
> RjS
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dean
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>
_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai