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.
regards
Keith
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hisham
Khartabil
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:27 AM
To: Robert Sparks
Cc: SIP IETF; Cullen Jennings; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 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-01
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
