Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/23/05 5:38 PM, "Dave Crocker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the proposed area, that does not seem to explain the inclusion of ENUM,
instant messaging or presence. (This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
ENUM is ancillary to telephony and
Dave Crocker wrote:
(This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
I don't think it is a useful exercise to go through all the closed
working groups to determine which would have been in RAI had the area
existed when they were still active.
/a
Hi. I'm just catching up but I think signaling is not an
essential discriminator of what we're talking about, and thus
this name is in fact unreasonable. Some relationships are
established or tailored through signaling that have nothing
to do with interactiveness or delay tolerance
On Saturday, September 24, 2005 17:02 PM, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:
On 9/24/05 at 4:41 PM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:
Signalling Applications and Infrastructure Area
Actually, I screwed up: It's Signalled Applications
On 9/22/05, Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/22/05 1:14 AM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The term real-time tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
That seems to be the vernacular use, but strictly speaking real-timeis about robust assurances of delivery
On 9/23/05 at 3:59 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
So far, references have been made to time-sensitive and to
signalling, yet it is not clear how this applies to the work that is
being defined as seeding the area. Since SIP is really a signalling
protocol, yes, that part is clear. But where is
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:
On 9/23/05 at 3:59 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
So far, references have been made to time-sensitive and to
signalling, yet it is not clear how this applies to the work that is
being defined as seeding the area. Since
On 9/24/05 at 4:41 PM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:
Signalling Applications and Infrastructure Area
Actually, I screwed up: It's Signalled Applications and Infrastructure.
Some relationships are established or tailored
Yaakov Stein wrote:
(Back to the original subject line)
I must admit that I am still unclear as to
the true purpose of this new area.
At first I understood that the IETF was finally to address
real-time and/or delay-sensitive applications,
and Brian's list of WGs was just a proposed
On 9/23/05 at 8:51 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yaakov Stein wrote:
I must admit that I am still unclear as to the true purpose of
this new area.
Firstly, I refer you to Ted Hardie's New area description/name
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37849.html
which
Melinda, et al,
The term
real-time tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
Vernacular is not usually *more* precise. Note that I cited (human)
interactive vs. real-time, with whereas the usage you describe one terms that
encompasses both.
The discussion at
On 9/23/05 5:38 PM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the proposed area, that does not seem to explain the inclusion of ENUM,
instant messaging or presence. (This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
ENUM is ancillary to telephony and not really to much else.
But anyway, you'll note
Melinda, thanks for pursuing this.
I tend to prefer
naming it something around multimedia applications but as
long as whatever it is is reasonably descriptive and won't
lead to people thinking that it's a proper place to work
on things like storage device controllers, I'm good.
well, what I
Adam Roach wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
(This area is going to take over xmpp, too?)
I don't think it is a useful exercise to go through all the closed
working groups to determine which would have been in RAI had the area
existed when they were still active.
i agree. so it's probably a
Hi Lakshminath,
The end result is that we have documents in the RFC Ed queue with
another document in the wings called draft-blah-clarifications
I'm plotting the growth rate of draft-blah-clarifications, and my
current estimate
is that it will exceed the size of draft-blah-original before
Eric Fenner wrote:
On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We will require all ADs that are the ADs for Bob to change their name
formally to Bruce.
Eric,
That's the best idea I've heard yet.
Eric
Time was that the multicast name around here was Steve.
Bob does at least
Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi Lakshminath,
...
Perhaps the IESG job description should say in part, you are expected
to work some 35-40 hours a week on IESG stuff, should keep your
calendar open in the months of ... for a retreat, and should be able
to participate in telecons at odd hours. If you
On 9/22/05 1:14 AM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term
real-time tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
That seems to be the vernacular use, but strictly speaking real-time
is about robust assurances of delivery within a constrained time period,
whether that time
Bill,
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
Why do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
My read of most of the current responses on this thread is that the SIP
related working groups are feeling pressure in the current Transport
Area, so some re-arrangement is needed. What I haven't seen is how
having more ADs involved would actually improve things.
(Back to the original subject line)
I must admit that I am still unclear as to
the true purpose of this new area.
At first I understood that the IETF was finally to address
real-time and/or delay-sensitive applications,
and Brian's list of WGs was just a proposed seeding
to start things off.
H. Someone told me once that real-time means on a
time scale such that no measurable time elapses between event
occurrences and their recognition.
There are technically 2 different types of real-time.
Hard real-time means that all processing required is always performed
before
john == john loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
john Bill,
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then
this would be a good idea. For example, having a single
DISCUSS per Area would be one way to
It seems that on the Internet so called real time applications are
generally either
delay sensitive
and / or
Jitter intolerant. (Which are, of course, different things.)
Marshall,
I think you are onto something quite fundamental. In recent times, the IETF
has gotten quite good at
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
Why do you think this would make any difference
Bill,
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
Why do you think this would make any
At 02:02 PM 9/21/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill,
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one
Lakshminath,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:35:21PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
I am curious about the scheduling issues. If the IESG job is a full-time
job, why can't the people on IESG find time to meet with each other, f2f or
in telecons; perhaps someone will help me understand
Thanks David. Please see inline:
At 05:49 PM 9/21/2005, David Kessens wrote:
Lakshminath,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:35:21PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
I am curious about the scheduling issues. If the IESG job is a
full-time
job, why can't the people on IESG find time to meet
I'm not sure 'real time' is being used here in the same sense it might
be used outside IP communities, but that's a modest nit for now. (I liked
Yaakov Stein's Interactive Services variant, though.)
This highlights one of the points of confusion about the current proposal:
the idea for
As we see from the comments so far,
the problem with giving a name to this new area
reveals uncertainty as to the intent.
Signaling-centric comments
Harald used the phrase SIP-type services
(note the emphasis on the signaling aspects)
implying that
. Apps, Transport and RAI.
Regards,
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ext IETF Chair
Sent: 16 September, 2005 16:14
To: IETF Announcement list
Subject: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI)
Area
There seems to be rough consensus that the area should exist, and even what
it's supposed to contain - but total confusion about the name!
Suggestion: Let's have a popularity contest for the name - someone collect
suggestions, and Henrik can make a voting site to gather opinions - and the
there when video is?
/Loa
Original Message
Subject: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:14:15 -0400
From: IETF Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Announcement list ietf-announce@ietf.org
As mentioned in the recent call
How about Converged Real-time APplications? (CRAP)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
There seems to be rough consensus that the area should exist, and even
what it's supposed to contain - but total confusion about the name!
Suggestion: Let's have a popularity contest for the name - someone
How about just Bob...
No need for acronym, just name it Bob.
We will require all ADs that are the ADs for Bob to change their name
formally to Bruce.
Bill
How about Converged Real-time APplications? (CRAP)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
There seems to be rough consensus that the area
On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We will require all ADs that are the ADs for Bob to change their name
formally to Bruce.
Eric,
That's the best idea I've heard yet.
Eric
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
I think that setting up this new area is a great idea,
and shows that we are adapting the structure of the IETF
to the applications people now want to use on the Internet.
A few more detailed comments follow.
The Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure Area develops protocols
and
--On mandag, september 19, 2005 13:51:54 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The RAI Area is seeded with existing working groups from the Transport
and Applications Area: SIP, SIPPING, XCON, SIMPLE, GEOPRIV, ECRIT,
ENUM, IPTEL, MEGACO, MMUSIC, IEPREP, SPEECHSC, and SIGTRAN.
I
On 9/19/05 4:23 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think all areas in the IETF are more-or-less defined as core of the
area + what is closely linked to the core + what fits less badly there
than elsewhere - ECRIT would come under closely linked, since its
subject area is
At 04:35 PM 9/19/2005 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/19/05 4:23 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think all areas in the IETF are more-or-less defined as core of the
area + what is closely linked to the core + what fits less badly there
than elsewhere - ECRIT would come
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:35:58 -0400
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/19/05 4:23 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think all areas in the IETF are more-or-less defined as core of the
area + what is closely linked to the core + what fits less badly there
than
At 23:05 19/09/2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I guess I would go for Low Latency Applications and Infrastucture
(LLAI) myself.
Do you conceptually accept in that wording that an OPES can be
plugged in there, for example as part of a service to the exchange?
The WG-OPES has worked on HTTP,
Short form: I like this idea.
Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area Description
The Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure Area develops protocols
and architectures for delay-sensitive interpersonal communications.
I'm not sure 'real time' is being used here in the same
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, IETF Chair wrote:
The RAI Area is seeded with existing working groups from the Transport
and Applications Area: SIP, SIPPING, XCON, SIMPLE, GEOPRIV, ECRIT, ENUM,
IPTEL, MEGACO, MMUSIC, IEPREP, SPEECHSC, and SIGTRAN. A good rule of
thumb for the incorporation of new work
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ext IETF Chair
Sent: 16 September, 2005 16:14
To: IETF Announcement list
Subject: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture
(RAI) Area
As mentioned in the recent call for NomCom volunteers, the
IESG is considering the creation of a new area
As mentioned in the recent call for NomCom volunteers, the IESG
is considering the creation of a new area, as set out below. We
solicit feedback from the community on the scope of this potential
new area as well as the impact on the IETF's infrastructure and
efficiency of setting up this new
47 matches
Mail list logo
