[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72
THERE ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE ANY PRESENTATIONS IN THE SIP AGENDA.
These are the slots we think we need to address the issues that have surfaced on the list, and where we believed face to face time would be beneficial, or where we as chairs need guidance on how to progress an item. In that respect the inclusion or exclusion of items is certainly discussable.
For all you agenda replanners out there, here are some issues to take into account.
From sip-bounces at ietf.org Thu Jul 17 05:11:21 2008
Return-Path: <sip-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-web-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555DE3A6A49;
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sip at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56933A6A17
for <sip at core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id XN7Y0N0PAX7v for <sip at core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B3A3A6405
for <sip at ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2])
by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m6HCBB4W007369;
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:11:25 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by
ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:11:25 -0500
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.20]) by
DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:11:22 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:11:20 +0200
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918002142731 at DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <66cd252f0807161626m298f6471g86f9e95d07e87771 at mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72
Thread-Index: Acjnm3bGNJZtFu3uSsWscNZzDZxnigAX8M7w
References: <E22BEE62-CA95-4FAC-839D-A4654950C404 at softarmor.com><B70B8EAC-2BC3-446D-AB56-522871BD5B28 at nostrum.com>
<66cd252f0807161626m298f6471g86f9e95d07e87771 at mail.gmail.com>
From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Hisham Khartabil" <hisham.khartabil at gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2008 12:11:22.0793 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3A701190:01C8E806]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Cc: SIP IETF <sip at ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>,
Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72
X-BeenThere: sip at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==============49449389=="
Sender: sip-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces at ietf.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
THERE ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE ANY PRESENTATIONS IN THE SIP
AGENDA.
These are the slots we think we need to address the issues
that have surfaced on the list, and where we believed face to face time would be
beneficial, or where we as chairs need guidance on how to progress an item. In
that respect the inclusion or exclusion of items is certainly
discussable.
For all you agenda replanners out there, here are some
issues to take into account.
1) We have already missed one significant
issue off the agenda which was the identity issue. Large number of drafts, large
number of posts to the mailing list - that outqualifies most of the other items
on the SIP WG list and in every other RAI WG without exception. If we gain an
hour on agenda planning, then that item goes back in, or we fall back on our
current plan of trying to have some discussion outside the main
meeting.
2) The agenda bashing time is also for 1
slide questions on WG drafts outside the main agenda. For example, I believe we
have to point out the current status change of domain certs and make sure
everyone is OK with that. Also pointing out that 10 minutes is excessive hurts -
there are other RAI groups that take longer than this on this
item.
3) 3 of the items are documents that have
recently, or are currently, in WGLC. We want to get these out of the door with
completion of open issues raised. If there are WGLC comments that would benefit
from face to face time in addition to list discussion to complete those
documents, then those documents will get agenda time. invfix already has one
issue to raise. Am still waiting for editor feedback on body-handling.
record-route-fix is still in WGLC with only one set of comments made so far -
where are your comments?
4) SIP is one of the larger groups and
therefore the mic queues are longer. If we have scheduled the right question it
takes at least 10 minutes for all the people at the mic queue t queue to have one go at
making their point, and some of you want more than one go. Attempts at asking
people to be more concise don't improve the situation. Therefore one appropriate
question at the face-to-face meeting takes 10 minutes to
discuss.
5) We didn't schedule the clash with
DRINKS. We suffer from the problem that there are too many RAI groups, and some
of them ask for more time than they need (and some of them get their requests in
late!). People propose sets of groups that can meet in parallel, but seem unable
to agree on the split. And then you want core meeting time for BOFs as well. SIP
hasn't had time for a navel gazing agenda item for a long long time. It
distresses me when SIP has thing it needs to discuss but cannot, and we see
other groups scheduling an hour for an agenda item entitled "way forward" or 20
minutes for "remaining direction" without any list discussion or incoming drafts
to back it up. I have no intention of asking to cancel the second SIP session.
We'll move stuff from one session to the other if it is possible and the move
helps people, but that is it.
regards
Keith
Having looked at the agenda, I think we can do without the 2nd session.
What I mean is that we can remove presentations from the 1st session that we
don't think need face time (Robert pointed at a couple) and move the ones
requiring face time from the 2nd session to the 1st.
I don't think we need 10 mins to bash the agenda. I also don't think we
need 10mins for draft-ietf-sip-saml-04. We can limit face time to drafts that
have open issues to discuss that were not resolveable on the list.
Thanks,
Hisham
On 17/07/2008, Robert
Sparks <rjsparks at nostrum.com> wrote:
This
is a really good place to start bashing from. Thanks for going through the
pain it takes to put this together.
Everyone should take note that
the second session has a RAI conflict
(with DRINKS) and think through
where to put conversations so that
we minimize the pain caused by the
necessary split of people.
I think I'd rather see the large,
architectural questions,
INFO and Identity, mo have one go at
making their point, and some of you want more than one go. Attempts at asking
people to be more concise don't improve the situation. Therefore one appropriate
question at the face-to-face meeting takes 10 minutes to
discuss.
5) We didn't schedule the clash with
DRINKS. We suffer from the problem that there are too many RAI groups, and some
of them ask for more time than they need (and some of them get their requests in
late!). People propose sets of groups that can meet in parallel, but seem unable
to agree on the split. And then you want core meeting time for BOFs as well. SIP
hasn't had time for a navel gazing agenda item for a long long time. It
distresses me when SIP has thing it needs to discuss but cannot, and we see
other groups scheduling an hour for an agenda item entitled "way forward" or 20
minutes for "remaining direction" without any list discussion or incoming drafts
to back it up. I have no intention of asking to cancel the second SIP session.
We'll move stuff from one session to the other if it is possible and the move
helps people, but that is it.
regards
Keith
Having looked at the agenda, I think we can do without the 2nd session.
What I mean is that we can remove presentations from the 1st session that we
don't think need face time (Robert pointed at a couple) and move the ones
requiring face time from the 2nd session to the 1st.
I don't think we need 10 mins to bash the agenda. I also don't think we
need 10mins for draft-ietf-sip-saml-04. We can limit face time to drafts that
have open issues to discuss that were not resolveable on the list.
Thanks,
Hisham
On 17/07/2008, Robert
Sparks <rjsparks at nostrum.com> wrote:
This
is a really good place to start bashing from. Thanks for going through the
pain it takes to put this together.
Everyone should take note that
the second session has a RAI conflict
(with DRINKS) and think through
where to put conversations so that
we minimize the pain caused by the
necessary split of people.
I think I'd rather see the large,
architectural questions,
INFO and Identity, moved intoved into the conflict free
spot and
put topics with a smaller constituency into the second
session.
I also think people across the working group should chime in
with what they think
the three most important _DRAFTS_ to talk about, in
person, at this meeting are.
I strongly suspect there's a surprise or two
that will come out of that.
I'll throw my own list in later (because
I want to think awhile about what's _not_
in the proposed agenda), but to
help tune things early:
I do want to talk about 199.
I don't
see why we should spend face time on sip-keep at this point.
I think
we can get away without face time on record-route fix.
(its unlikely at
this late stage that we'll find a crisis to work through there).
I
have received very little feedback on invfix, and I don't think
we need to spend any in-meeting time on the essential
corrections process itself. So, I propose we take that
entire
topic to the list and/or hallways. I'll take on
pushing a few
key folks to review the big recent changes to
invfix and
speak up that they've done so before we get to
the meetings.
Everybody else: If you hold the token on any of the
other drafts and feel you can
resolve any issues you currently have
the same way, I strongly urge
you to propose something similar for
your time.
RjS
On Jul 16, 2008,
at 10:45 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
This
is the draft agenda for the SIP meeting at IETF 72 in Dublin.
•
Note that this agenda is subject to change based on list
conversations
• Note that we're still trying to work out how to
have the "Identity" discussion
Pretty HTML is at:
http://www.softarmor.com/mediawiki/index.php/SIP_Agenda_IETF_72
Text
follows
-----------------
Agenda for SIP at IETF 72, Primary
Session, Tuesday July 29, 2008, 1300-1500, Convention 3
Agenda
Bash
Chairs
10
Using SAML for
SIP
Chairs
draft-ietf-sip-saml-04
10
Identify requirements
for test matrix to move SIP to Draft Standard
Robert
Sparks
draft-sparks-sip-steps-to-draft-00
20
Essential
corrections to RFC 3261 (1st batch)
Robert
Sparks
draft-sparks-sip-invfix-02
15
Delivery of Request URI
and Parameters to UAS Through Proxy
Speaker
TBD
draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02
draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01
25
Mechanisms
for UA Initiated Privacy
Mayumi
Munakata
draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-02
15
MIME body handling
in SIP
Gonzalo
Camarillo
draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-02
15
Guidelines for
double route recording
Thomas
Froment
draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-03
Time TBD
Keepalive
Without Outbound
Christer
Holmberg
draft-holmberg-sip-keep-01
10
Agenda for SIP at
IETF 72, Primary Session, Thursday July 31, 2008, 1510-1610, Convention
3
Agenda Bash
Chairs
5
Termination of early dialog
prior to final response
Christer
Holmberg
draft-ietf-sip-199-00
20
INFO
Speaker
TBD
draft-burger-sip-info-02
draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-01o the conflict free
spot and
put topics with a smaller constituency into the second
session.
I also think people across the working group should chime in
with what they think
the three most important _DRAFTS_ to talk about, in
person, at this meeting are.
I strongly suspect there's a surprise or two
that will come out of that.
I'll throw my own list in later (because
I want to think awhile about what's _not_
in the proposed agenda), but to
help tune things early:
I do want to talk about 199.
I don't
see why we should spend face time on sip-keep at this point.
I think
we can get away without face time on record-route fix.
(its unlikely at
this late stage that we'll find a crisis to work through there).
I
have received very little feedback on invfix, and I don't think
we need to spend any in-meeting time on the essential
corrections process itself. So, I propose we take that
entire
topic to the list and/or hallways. I'll take on
pushing a few
key folks to review the big recent changes to
invfix and
speak up that they've done so before we get to
the meetings.
Everybody else: If you hold the token on any of the
other drafts and feel you can
resolve any issues you currently have
the same way, I strongly urge
you to propose something similar for
your time.
RjS
On Jul 16, 2008,
at 10:45 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
This
is the draft agenda for the SIP meeting at IETF 72 in Dublin.
•
Note that this agenda is subject to change based on list
conversations
• Note that we're still trying to work out how to
have the "Identity" discussion
Pretty HTML is at:
http://www.softarmor.com/mediawiki/index.php/SIP_Agenda_IETF_72
Text
follows
-----------------
Agenda for SIP at IETF 72, Primary
Session, Tuesday July 29, 2008, 1300-1500, Convention 3
Agenda
Bash
Chairs
10
Using SAML for
SIP
Chairs
draft-ietf-sip-saml-04
10
Identify requirements
for test matrix to move SIP to Draft Standard
Robert
Sparks
draft-sparks-sip-steps-to-draft-00
20
Essential
corrections to RFC 3261 (1st batch)
Robert
Sparks
draft-sparks-sip-invfix-02
15
Delivery of Request URI
and Parameters to UAS Through Proxy
Speaker
TBD
draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-02
draft-holmberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01
25
Mechanisms
for UA Initiated Privacy
Mayumi
Munakata
draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-02
15
MIME body handling
in SIP
Gonzalo
Camarillo
draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-02
15
Guidelines for
double route recording
Thomas
Froment
draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-03
Time TBD
Keepalive
Without Outbound
Christer
Holmberg
draft-holmberg-sip-keep-01
10
Agenda for SIP at
IETF 72, Primary Session, Thursday July 31, 2008, 1510-1610, Convention
3
Agenda Bash
Chairs
5
Termination of early dialog
prior to final response
Christer
Holmberg
draft-ietf-sip-199-00
20
INFO
Speaker
TBD
draft-burger-sip-info-02
draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-01
dra=
draft-rosenberg-sip-info-litmus-01
draft-kaplan-sipping-dtmf-package-00
draft-willis-sip-infopackage-00
35
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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