Subject: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: Additional Working Group Items

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:26:34 -0500

[as chair]

Following on from the previous message, we have a couple of documents 
that have been tentatively accepted by the RAI community to satisfy a 
couple of the milestones that have subsequently been moved into SIPCORE. 
This message is a formal call for consensus to adopt these documents as 
working group items to satisfy the associated milestones:

Delivering request-URI and parameters to UAS via proxy    (PS)
   draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery
   [adopted by SIP WG consensus after IETF 73, still waiting for new 
version]

SIP Events throttling mechanism    (PS)
   draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle
   [SIPPING WG indicated desire to adopt in as SIP WG item at IETF 74]

Unless objections are raised before April 30th, the foregoing documents 
will be considered adopted as WG items for SIPCORE, and the chairs will 
be instructing the authors of these documents to submit new versions 
with "draft-ietf-sipcore-*" prefixes.

/a

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:58:37 -0500

At 01:26 PM 4/16/2009, Adam Roach wrote:
>   [adopted by SIP WG consensus after IETF 73, still waiting for new version]
>

adopt both

>Unless objections are raised before April 30th, the foregoing 
>documents will be considered adopted as WG items for SIPCORE, and 
>the chairs will be instructing the authors of these documents to 
>submit new versions with "draft-ietf-sipcore-*" prefixes.
>
>/a

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:16:38 -0400

>    [SIPPING WG indicated desire to adopt in as SIP WG item at IETF 74]

My vote is to adopt neither in this WG.  Neither of them update nor replace 3261-3265.  And DISPATCH may decide target-uri-delivery belongs in a new WG with 4244bis, or event-throttle may belong in a new WG with overload controls, for example.  But I'm not too tied to this position - I just think it's a possible litmus test for this new organizational structure.

-hadriel

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:39:09 -0500

[as chair]

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> My vote is to adopt neither in this WG.  Neither of them update nor replace 3261-3265.

To be clear, the question we are asking is not "are these milestones 
okay" (that discussion has already concluded on the RAI list) -- it is 
"should we take on these specific documents to satisfy the these two 
milestones that are already part of the SIPCORE charter."

/a

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:03:12 +0800

And Hadriel is saying they are not Core.

On Apr 17, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Adam Roach wrote:

> okay" (that discussion has already concluded on the RAI list) -- it  
> is "should we take on these specific documents to satisfy the these  
> two milestones that are already part of the SIPCORE charter."
>
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:21:39 -0400

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your question.  So we've already got milestones to tackle the problems, and you're just asking about the specific solution docs for them.  Got it.
Right, then I rescind my original negative response.
Sorry for the confusion.  :(

-hadriel
p.s. though it makes me wonder if we can really decide what goes into SIPCORE or not a priori, until we agree on what the right solution is to a problem.  Target-uri for instance originally started as an update to 3261 when it was ua-loose-route I think.  But I digress...

________________________________________
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:39 PM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Cc: SIPCORE
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Call for Consensus: Additional Working Group Items

[as chair]

Hadriel Kaplan wrote: 

To be clear, the question we are asking is not "are these milestones okay" (that discussion has already concluded on the RAI list) -- it is "should we take on these specific documents to satisfy the these two milestones that are already part of the SIPCORE charter."

/a

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:43:18 -0500

[as chair]

> p.s. though it makes me wonder if we can really decide what goes into SIPCORE or not a priori, until we agree on what the right solution is to a problem.  Target-uri for instance originally started…

That's a fair point for any new work RAI takes on in the future, and 
something that DISPATCH will need to pay special attention to.

This situation is different, though. The majority of the milestones in 
the SIPCORE charter are there to avoid orphaning them due to the SIP and 
SIPPING shutdown. In the RAI reorganization, the consensus was to move 
most of the active items from SIP and SIPPING into SIPCORE as a special, 
one-time-only grandfathering action. They would not otherwise belong in 
SIPCORE.

/a

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:45:24 -0700

Yeah, this is why I wanted the cruft either clearly punted to DISPATCH or
left in a must-finish-things SIP zombie group. This is going to make future
application of charter discipline in SIPCORE very hard. But as usual, not
enough people believe me . . .

--
dean

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>wrote:

>
> Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your question.  So we've already got milestones
> to tackle the problems, and you're just asking about the specific solution
> docs for them.  Got it.
> p.s. though it makes me wonder if we can really decide what goes into
> SIPCORE or not a priori, until we agree on what the right solution is to a
> problem.  Target-uri for instance originally started as an update to 3261
> when it was ua-loose-route I think.  But I digress...
>
> To be clear, the question we are asking is not "are these milestones okay"
> (that discussion has already concluded on the RAI list) -- it is "should we
> take on these specific documents to satisfy the these two milestones that
> are already part of the SIPCORE charter."
>
> /a

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:43:50 +0200

Hi,

I vote for adopting both documents.

Eventhough they are not "core", I think the SIPCORE charter does say
that "current documents/work" may also be handled by SIPCORE, in order
to allow a smooth transition. Or am I wrong?

Regards,

Christer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Burger
> Sent: 17. huhtikuuta 2009 2:03
> To: Adam Roach; Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: SIPCORE
> >>>    [SIPPING WG indicated desire to adopt in as SIP WG 
> item at IETF 
> >>> 74]
> >>>
> >> My vote is to adopt neither in this WG.  Neither of them 
> update nor 
> >> replace 3261-3265.
> >