> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
