Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72

["Elwell, John" <john.elwell at siemens.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Sent: 17 July 2008 13:11
> To: Hisham Khartabil
> Cc: SIP IETF; Cullen Jennings; Dean Willis
> Subject: 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.
>  
> 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 
> 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.

[JRE] I would like to support what Keith says, in particular this last
point (5). Over recent years I have been in sessions of some RAI groups
that have finished early or had relatively large amounts of time for a
small number of topics, yet this never seems to be the case in SIP or
SIPPING, which seem to be time-constrained on a regular basis. Maybe
mailing list activity between meetings should be one of the criteria on
which WGs session durations are determined.

John
 
_______________________________________________
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