Subject: [Ecrit] Rechartering: Roadmap

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:50:50 +0200

Hi all, 

In a previous mail James was "asking" why the re-charting effort is taking
so long.

First, the discussion we had in Dublin (last summer) was mainly to get the
feedback from the group about where the group should be heading to. We got
good feedback: a) we learned that the group was interested in working on
early warning but that a sort-of BOF should be prepared (later that turned
into a real-BOF effort lead by Steve and Brian). b) there was interest in
doing non-emergency LoST extensions and c) the group gave feedback to some
other emergency services related extensions. 
We had a lot on the table. 

Second, this is the important reason. Jon always told us to finish our
current documents first before we pick up new work. We have also said this
to the group. This is, in general, a common procedure with IETF working
groups. 

This is also a useful advice given that we have not meet our expectations
regarding PhoneBCP / Framework. I also asked Brian whether he needs help
with the document (e.g., in the form of a new editor or an additional
author). He said that he can handle it. We trusted him. 

These two documents are delayed already for a while and every time we
believe we get closer to finish them we find another issue. After the
IETF#72 meeting in Dublin there was essentially silence during the summer
months -- everyone was on the beach, I guess. Then, in October the topic of
premature disconnect indication surfaced and was blocking the progress of of
Phone BCP again. We took steps to advance that work independently of Phone
BCP (i.e., this is good for Phone BCP and hopefully the issues will get
resolved independently; see Brian's mail). 

NOTE: That does not prevent us from progressing the other documents.

With draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes there was the question whether this
is actually part of LoST sync. I asked the group for a preference. It was
not clear whether it is strongly tight to LoST sync. Hence, we decided to
dump it into a separate document. Jon was OK to add this documents to the
group without a need to recharter because he got the impression that they
fall within the scope of the group.

Regarding draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req: We had a lot discussions
around this topic. It later turned out that this is essentially the question
on how to deal with rough location in LoST. Jon agreed that we can add this
requirements document to our milestone list but for the solution document he
wanted to have it included in the rechartering discussion. Makes sense to me
given the controversial discussions. 

As some of you might know, it is not necessary to go through a re-charting
step, which is typically quite lengthy, with every new document. For a
number of the documents we do, however, stretch the limits of the charter.
Hence, we started the rechartering investigations. When we scheduled the
rechartering discussion for Dublin we thought that we are essentially done
with PhoneBCP/framework (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05279.html). Later it
turned out that this wasn't quite true. 

Everyone can help to make better and faster progress: if you haven't sent a
review of PhoneBCP/Framework to the list then you are essentially delaying
the work. This includes reading through the document and concluding that the
document is fine. Please also try to provide constructive feedback or
proposal for how to resolve your comment. Make sure that your comment gets
addressed -- if not complain immediately.

Let me know if there are further questions. 

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit