[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I would also suggest the same list. And in particular, if we don't
make a lot of progress on INFO and rfc4474, we have wasted our
time. Those two IMHO should cover 75% of our meeting time. Having a
bunch of 10 minute presentations, each of which is on a topic that
only three people care about, is not a good use of everyones time.
Those two topics clearly have big impact on SIP as a whole and are
of broad interest.
I don't disagree. In fact, I think you are absolutely right.
But while they are within the scope of our charter, neither INFO nor
revision of RFC 4474 is a milestone on our charter. The other things
we currently have on the agenda (except "keep") ARE milestone items.
And we're LATE on most of them!
You seem to be assuming that spending meeting time on them will make
them less late. For the most part, that's only going to be true when
theFrom sip-bounces at ietf.org Fri Jul 18 07:55:39 2008
Return-Path: <sip-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52E33A6ABA;
Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sip at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD873A69A8
for <sip at core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 9AQX2a+VdhxH for <sip at core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net
[IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0A13A6ABA
for <sip at ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.232] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121])
(authenticated bits=0)
by nostrum.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m6IEu6gT071258
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:56:06 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from rjsparks at nostrum.com)
Message-Id: <FD3669AC-E7DA-4FB1-89E6-AF2FE9823697 at nostrum.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks at nostrum.com>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <D974C1F8-1BE4-40A7-ABF7-56B02D08F875 at softarmor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:56:06 -0500
References: <E22BEE62-CA95-4FAC-839D-A4654950C404 at softarmor.com> <B70B8EAC-2BC3-446D-AB56-522871BD5B28 at nostrum.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0E9B5B7 at GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
<E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC30EFF77827F at mail.acmepacket.com>
<487FA6A9.7070208 at cisco.com>
<D974C1F8-1BE4-40A7-ABF7-56B02D08F875 at softarmor.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted
mechanism)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7747/Fri Jul 18 08:07:21 2008 on
shaman.nostrum.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: SIP IETF <sip at ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72
X-BeenThere: sip at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: sip-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces at ietf.org
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I would also suggest the same list. And in particular, if we don't
make a lot of progress on INFO and rfc4474, we have wasted our
time. Those two IMHO should cover 75% of our meeting time. Having a
bunch of 10 minute presentations, each of which is on a topic that
only three people care about, is not a good use of everyones time.
Those two topics clearly have big impact on SIP as a whole and are
of broad interest.
I don't disagree. In fact, I think you are absolutely right.
But while they are within the scope of our charter, neither INFO nor
revision of RFC 4474 is a milestone on our charter. The other things
we currently have on the agenda (except "keep") ARE milestone items.
And we're LATE on most of them!
You seem to be assuming that spending meeting time on them will make
them less late. For the most part, that's only going to be true when
there's somre's some blocking discontent that an in-face meeting can resolve.
Most of the stuff that you are expressing frustration over isn't in
that state.
So either our charter is wrong, or we're out-of-scope in our
interests.
This is a false dichotomy, even if both statements turn out to be true.
I think, rather, that we have a lot of chartered items that just need
to finish. They may need management to make sure review happens. They
may need editors to punt them to somebody with more time. But the
majority _aren't_ cross-community controversial. The in-the-room in-
face meeting time needs to focus on things that are.
And quite often, the discussions requiring face time to resolve are
exactly the kinds of things that result in new milestones and
occasionally revised charters.
I've previously tried to charter deliverables on both items and been
shot down.
And yet, you're one of the first to complain that the WG/ IETF won't
say NO. :)
(Lest someone read more into that than I intend, I am not trying to
say no to the info or identity discussions.)
So what do you think we should do?
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org 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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
e blocking discontent that an in-face meeting can resolve.
Most of the stuff that you are expressing frustration over isn't in
that state.
So either our charter is wrong, or we're out-of-scope in our
interests.
This is a false dichotomy, even if both statements turn out to be true.
I think, rather, that we have a lot of chartered items that just need
to finish. They may need management to make sure review happens. They
may need editors to punt them to somebody with more time. But the
majority _aren't_ cross-community controversial. The in-the-room in-
face meeting time needs to focus on things that are.
And quite often, the discussions requiring face time to resolve are
exactly the kinds of things that result in new milestones and
occasionally revised charters.
I've previously tried to charter deliverables on both items and been
shot down.
And yet, you're one of the first to complain that the WG/ IETF won't
say NO. :)
(Lest someone read more into that than I intend, I am not trying to
say no to the info or identity discussions.)
So what do you think we should do?
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org 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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip