The WG has been rather quiet and slipped its deadlines. Conference calls (virtual interim meetings) seen as a good mechanism to help move and focus the work. Ratify the decisions and results on mailing list so people get a chance to say that they agree or not. Actual work can proceed on the virtual interim meetings.

New milestones as agreed by everyone are given below.

Summary of New milestones:
Aug 2011 Problem statement and requirements to IESG
Oct 2011 SIP call control UUI specification to IESG
Nov 2011 ISDN UUI Service application usage specification to IESG

The concrete steps to reach the new milestones are as follows:

Problem Statement and Requirements Draft
Aug-15-2011: Revised version released for second round WGLC
Aug-31-2011: Requirements draft to IESG

Mechanism Draft
Sep-15-2011: Mechansim draft WGLC
Oct-31-2011: Mechanism draft to IESG

ISDN Service Usage Draft
Sep-15-2011: Adopt service usage draft as WG deliverable
Oct-15-2011: Service usage draft WGLC
Nov-30-2011: Service usage draft to IESG

Chairs to ensure that the work progresses as agreed to by these dates. Will hold virtual meetings to move work ahead expeditiously.

Alan Johnston presented the problem statement and requirements draft, version -03 is now in force. -02 WGLC concluded a month ago. Good comments received.

Open issues discussed during the meeting:

Issue: UUI in failure responses.
Decision: Most likely will not carry in responses. Alan to ratify this on the list.

Issue: URI or URL in UUI to be carried as a UUI? Or use Call-Info and other means?
Decision: URL and URI not appropriate in UUI and other SIP or extension mechanisms to be used instead. Alan to make sure that the mechanism draft has appropriate language in it to convey the intent.

Issue: Do we have to tag UUI as DSS1 vs. QSIG vs. ISUP?
Decision: No. Alan to ratify on list.

Plan to do a minor revision after Quebec City and have a second quick WGLC.

Alan to make a minor edit to REQ-8 to reflect that the recipient must fail the session if it gets a UUI that it does not understand.

James Rafferty presented the mechanism draft, -01 is in effect. Need more WG review. James has listed a series of comments that he has fixed as result of list discussion.

The following issues were discussed further on the mic:

Issue: Multiple UUI headers can be present or not?
Decision: There is ambiguity on how to process multiple UUI headers both at the signaling level as well as the application context. The ISDN UUI service does not need multiple UUI headers. Alan suggested that the ISDN UUI service draft should provide guidance on ensuring that only one UUI header is present, and if the terminating side receives more than one UUI header, it should pick the first one and drop the rest.

Issue: Is there a dependency on the History-Info header? Since it is being updated, will we have a dependency on the new H-I header?
Decision: Get one of the authors of H-I to confirm this.

Issue: We are using an option tag, but no requirements in text on such a tag. Do we need to have an explicit text around the options tag?
Decision: Need to circle to RFC 4485 on Supported versus Require; the UUI appears to be an option tag in the Require header field. Text in UUI mechanism draft should reflect this.