[dispatch] DISPATCH Topics - No Meeting in Berlin

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 01 July 2013 20:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:50:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN7vj7Ls9Y+fLLRJJFZQ0Mzc4S++ctLnig_C2nOM20nZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00235429d6c464075a04e0795f34"
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [dispatch] DISPATCH Topics - No Meeting in Berlin
Precedence: list

The chairs and ADs have reviewed the list of topics submitted for the
IETF-87 timeframe (i.e., topics since IETF-86).

We had the following requests for agenda time or consideration for
dispatching prior to IETF-87.  Specific responses have been posted
on the list and/or sent directly to the authors. The following provides
a summary of those responses:

1)  draft-allen-dispatch-poc-instanceid-usage-00:
Comments:  we need more list discussion and it's not quite clear what
the problem is or use case that this document is addressing.  We know
it's a OMA  related, but we need more background in order to decide how
to handle it.  Likely, an expert review and AD sponsorship would be
reasonable
after any list feedback and the above is addressed

2)  draft-holmberg-dispatch-udptl-dtls-00 - DTLS for UDPTL for ITU fax
Comments:  It's not quite clear why this is needed (by 3GPP).

3)  V4/v6 from SIP Forum: draft-klatsky-dispatch-ipv6-impact-ipv4
Comments:  It's not quite clear what protocol work is being requested
(or if required).  Suggest that this needs more discussion and a problem
statement.

4)  draft-dawes-dispatch-mediasec-parameter-06.txt
An informational RFC describing a header field parameter to distinguish
security
mechanisms that protect media (as opposed to those that protect signalling)
between a UA and its first-hop SIP entity, and to create an IANA registry to
list names of such media-specific security mechanisms

Comments:   It's not quite clear why this is in SIP and not SDP - it
appears to be a 3GPP requirement.  More background as to the
problem being solved is needed.

One thing in common that is lacking at this time for the above proposals is
clear
problem statements.  The expectation has been that topics being requested to
be dispatched have at least a minimal problem statement. For items that are
broader in scope, the expectation would be a preliminary charter. Note,
that the deadline for those have passed, thus there are no topics that we
believe
require face to face discussion. As a result,  we will NOT be having
a f2f meeting in Berlin.   If you requested agenda time, you have been
contacted
with regards to specific handling requested to move your topic forward.

Note, that it may be possible to dispatch some of the above topics prior to
IETF-88
based on mailing list discussions.

If you have comments on any of the above, PLEASE start a separate thread of
discussion
with an appropriate Subject.

On a more general point, one reason we believe that some of the topics
are not quite ready for face to face discussion is that we moved out
the deadlines to give folks more time to submit documents (i.e., we no
longer have separate deadlines from the main IETF deadlines).   Thus,
we will be considering moving the deadlines earlier as we have done in
the past for the IETF-88 meeting.

Best Regards,
Mary.

[dispatch] DISPATCH Topics - No Meeting in Berlin Mary Barnes