Re: [Sip] Draft agenda, SIP at IETF 72

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy at cisco.com]
>
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 24:31 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> > I'm also very surprised SIP can be scheduled in conflict with any
> > other RAI WG, especially a brand new one. :(
>
> All the RAI groups that requested more than one session had their
> second session scheduled in conflict with another meeting.

Having the second slot of a multi-slot WG meeting conflict with another WG is missing the point if the other WG it conflicts with is not a multi-slot one.  What it's doing then is penalizing the other WG.  For example, it is unfair to DRINKS that SIP conflicts with it - *DRINKS* didn't ask for two slots.

To reiterate what I've posted on the RAI mailing list, I grok the overlap problem, I think.  What I suggest, though, is that the overlap decision be implemented differently.  Instead of just forcing any RAI WG that needs 2 slots to have its second slot conflict, choose the conflicts based on topic relativity.  One proposal I posted was to break the groups into topic threads, such that different threads could conflict but not with the globally relevant groups (like SIP).

Let me put it a different way - what if the second slot for SIP conflicted with P2PSIP?

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
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