Re: [Sip] Toward the Evolution of SIP and Related Working Groups

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

[fixed subject title, since I apparently broke it]

How about a compromise: 2 WG's of 2-hour meetings each (since today's SIP WG actually takes 2 of 2-hour meeting slots I think).
One for the general SIP stuff as today, and one for "SIP Security".

The new security group would take such things as:
draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework
draft-ietf-sip-eku
draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements
draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy
draft-ietf-sip-domain-certs
draft-ietf-sip-e2m-sec
draft-ietf-sip-saml

And it would be the venue for any new drafts/work related to Identity, Privacy, transport/media security as relates to SIP, etc.  I think this is roughly half the work in the SIP WG.  The people attending these two WG's would probably be nearly identical as today's SIP WG, and they would consume the same amount of meeting time as today's SIP WG, but it would cut your chair work in half.

It *won't* solve your eternal WG issue, but I think that problem is orthogonal and separately debatable.

-hadriel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean
> Willis
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:27 PM
> To: Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: sip at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] (no subject)
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> > Four 1hr meetings does not equal one four hour meeting. With the
> > time it takes for a prior group to clear a room and another group to
> > enter, achieve quorum, and cover clerical details, you have lost
> > probably 20 minutes at a minimum. So your four one hour meetings
> > provide 4*(60-20)=160 minutes of useful time. A four hour meeting
> > has 4*60-20=220 minutes. You just lost an hour of working time.
>
> Personally, I gained about 4 hours of working time . . .
>
> Seriously, I don't think the overhead is as high as you estimate, but
> it's certainly not "zero".
>
> However:
>
> If the 4 meetings were better run and better focused because they had
> clear scope, comprehensible agendas, and chairs with enough time to do
> the job right, I believe we'd still come out ahead over what we have
> now.
>
> --
> Dean
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip