Subject: [sipcore] SIPCORE Rechartering

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:28:00 -0500

[as SIPCORE chair]

Back when we transitioned from the SIPPING/SIP working group structure 
to SIPCORE, we put relatively tight limits on the SIPCORE charter. This 
was a recognition of the fact that the volume of SIP-related work at the 
time was too large for any one working group to reasonably handle. 
Instead, the intention was that the DISPATCH model of creating small, 
short-lived working groups for specific topics would be a better way to 
manage the relatively heavy workload.

Fast forward seven years to today. SIP is a much more mature protocol, 
and the inflow of new work is significantly smaller than it was back 
then. At the same time, we have had several small, self-contained work 
items show up in DISPATCH that were deemed too small to create a new 
working group for, but precluded from being dispatched to SIPCORE by its 
charter. This has led to unnecessary delays as we determined the best 
disposition for these items.

We, the SIPCORE chairs and area director, seek to fix that. We would 
like to amend the SIPCORE charter to allow it to take on small, 
self-contained protocol extensions in addition to changes to the core 
SIP protocol. This is a relatively minor update to the existing charter, 
which expands the scope as described above, and adds back in two of the 
architectural principles from the SIP charter which are applicable only 
to protocol extensions.

Please provide feedback on the proposed charter by sending email to the 
SIPCORE mailing list. We will also discuss this briefly during the 
DISPATCH session in Seoul.

The proposed charter text follows.

> The Session Initiation Protocol Core (SIPCore) working group is
> chartered to maintain and continue the development of the SIP protocol,
> currently defined as proposed standard RFCs 3261, 3262, 3263, 3264, and
> 6665.
>
> The SIPCore working group will concentrate on specifications that update
> or replace the core SIP specifications named above as well as
> specifications pertaining to small, self-contained SIP protocol
> extensions. The process and requirements for new SIP extensions are
> documented in RFC5727, "Change Process for the Session Initiation
> Protocol".
>
> Throughout its work, the group will strive to maintain the basic model
> and architecture defined by SIP. In particular:
>
> 1. Services and features are provided end-to-end whenever possible.
>
> 2. Reuse of existing Internet protocols and architectures and
> integrating with other Internet applications is crucial.
>
> 3. Standards-track extensions and new features must be generally
> applicable, and not applicable only to a specific set of session
> types.
>
> 4. Simpler solutions that solve a given problem should be favored
> over more complex solutions.
>
> The primary source of change requirements to the core SIP specifications
> (enumerated above) will be a) interoperability problems that stem from
> ambiguous, or under-defined specification, and b) requirements from
> other working groups in the ART Area. The primary source of new protocol
> extensions is the DISPATCH working group, which will generally make the
> determination regarding whether new SIP-related work warrants a new
> working group or belongs in an existing one.

For ease of reference, the existing SIPCORE charter is at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/

Thanks!

/a

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 00:23:39 +0000

Adam,

On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
<snip>

We, the SIPCORE chairs and area director, seek to fix that. We would like to amend the SIPCORE charter to allow it to take on small, self-contained protocol extensions in addition to changes to the core SIP protocol. This is a relatively minor update to the existing charter, which expands the scope as described above, and adds back in two of the architectural principles from the SIP charter which are applicable only to protocol extensions.

Please provide feedback on the proposed charter by sending email to the SIPCORE mailing list. We will also discuss this briefly during the DISPATCH session in Seoul.

This makes sense to me. The proposed text looked fine to me.

Dan

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 21:17:44 -0400

Will existing SIP-related drafts in DISPATCH be moved to SIPCORE?

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Dan York <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Adam,
>
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> We, the SIPCORE chairs and area director, seek to fix that. We would like
> to amend the SIPCORE charter to allow it to take on small, self-contained
> protocol extensions in addition to changes to the core SIP protocol. This
> is a relatively minor update to the existing charter, which expands the
> scope as described above, and adds back in two of the architectural
> principles from the SIP charter which are applicable only to protocol
> extensions.
>
> SIPCORE mailing list. We will also discuss this briefly during the DISPATCH
> session in Seoul.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>
>

---

From: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:47:42 +0000

Note that I don’t actually think it was the volume of work – I think it was more Cullen Jennings trying to get rid of at least two working group chairs he did not like.

Otherwise why the non-appearance of any of those WG chairs in the restructured organisation? Every other split has retained WG chairs.

Keith

From: dispatch [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: 04 November 2016 21:28
To: 'SIPCORE'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] SIPCORE Rechartering

[as SIPCORE chair]

Back when we transitioned from the SIPPING/SIP working group structure to SIPCORE, we put relatively tight limits on the SIPCORE charter. This was a recognition of the fact that the volume of SIP-related work at the time was too large for any one working group to reasonably handle. Instead, the intention was that the DISPATCH model of creating small, short-lived working groups for specific topics would be a better way to manage the relatively heavy workload.

Fast forward seven years to today. SIP is a much more mature protocol, and the inflow of new work is significantly smaller than it was back then. At the same time, we have had several small, self-contained work items show up in DISPATCH that were deemed too small to create a new working group for, but precluded from being dispatched to SIPCORE by its charter. This has led to unnecessary delays as we determined the best disposition for these items.

For ease of reference, the existing SIPCORE charter is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/

Thanks!

/a

---

From: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:47:41 +0000

Perhaps you couild elaborate on how you now see the relationship between SIPCORE and DISPATCH. It is not clear to me what the criteria are for submitting something new to DISPATCH, versus SIPCORE directly.

Would everything go to DISPATCH first and the change here is to allow SIPCORE to take on work that has been dispatched, or would SIPCORE be the first point of entry for material, and if so, to what scope.

Finally, some stuff from DISPATCH has gone direct to AD sponsored – would you now see those becoming WG items of SIPCORE, or would that route still be envisaged, and if so, would the “dispatch” occur from DISPATCH or SIPCORE.

Maybe you could use some recent drafts and RFCs as examples of where you think things will change.

Keith

[as SIPCORE chair]

Thanks!

/a

---

From: "Vijay K.Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:59:24 -0600

> DISPATCH session in Seoul.

The change to the charter sounds reasonable.

Having been a beneficiary of one of the first mini-WGs to be
dispatch'ed (sipclf), the model of dispatch'ing has worked.  However, in
its trajectory, as Adam states, SIP is now a more mature protocol and I
suspect the itches that need to be scratched have more to do with
operational issues with SIP than core modifications to the protocol
itself.  Seems reasonable to perform such tweaks in sipcore.

Cheers,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: [email-masked] / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:05:06 -0600

The proposed new SIPCORE charter text is now available at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/ . It's identical 
to the text from Adam's email, other than some potential formatting 
differences.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 4 Nov 2016, at 16:28, Adam Roach wrote:

> to SIPCORE, we put relatively tight limits on the SIPCORE charter. 
> This was a recognition of the fact that the volume of SIP-related work 
> at the time was too large for any one working group to reasonably 
> handle. Instead, the intention was that the DISPATCH model of creating 
> small, short-lived working groups for specific topics would be a 
> better way to manage the relatively heavy workload.
>
> working group for, but precluded from being dispatched to SIPCORE by 
> its charter. This has led to unnecessary delays as we determined the 
> best disposition for these items.
>
> SIP protocol. This is a relatively minor update to the existing 
> charter, which expands the scope as described above, and adds back in 
> two of the architectural principles from the SIP charter which are 
> applicable only to protocol extensions.
>
> Please provide feedback on the proposed charter by sending email to 
> the SIPCORE mailing list. We will also discuss this briefly during the 

> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:22:26 -0600

> Will existing SIP-related drafts in DISPATCH be moved to SIPCORE?

To my knowledge, there are no SIP related drafts that are actual 
milestones for DISPATCH. It would seem reasonable to "dispatch" drafts 
currently in discussion that fit the proposed new SIPCORE charter to 
SIPCORE.

There have been some drafts that DISPATCH recommended to be AD 
sponsored. I wouldn't expect a wholesale move of active AD sponsored 
drafts to SIPCORE, but I think it is an option we could consider on a 
case by case basis.

In any case, we should not hold up progress on active drafts pending the 
SIPCORE recharter.
>> like
>> the

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:38:07 +0900

Hi,

The proposed charter (at the link below) will be reviewed by the IESG at 
the Dec 1 Telechat. If people have further comments, please make them as 
soon as possible.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 8 Nov 2016, at 8:05, Ben Campbell wrote:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/ . It's 
> identical to the text from Adam's email, other than some potential 
> formatting differences.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
>> Back when we transitioned from the SIPPING/SIP working group 
>> structure to SIPCORE, we put relatively tight limits on the SIPCORE 
>> charter. This was a recognition of the fact that the volume of 
>> SIP-related work at the time was too large for any one working group 
>> to reasonably handle. Instead, the intention was that the DISPATCH 
>> model of creating small, short-lived working groups for specific 
>> topics would be a better way to manage the relatively heavy workload.
>>
>> Fast forward seven years to today. SIP is a much more mature 
>> protocol, and the inflow of new work is significantly smaller than it 
>> was back then. At the same time, we have had several small, 
>> self-contained work items show up in DISPATCH that were deemed too 
>> small to create a new working group for, but precluded from being 
>> dispatched to SIPCORE by its charter. This has led to unnecessary 
>> delays as we determined the best disposition for these items.
>>
>> the SIPCORE mailing list. We will also discuss this briefly during 
>> the DISPATCH session in Seoul.
>>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 06:25:28 -0800

This change seems like a good idea to me. 

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> [as SIPCORE chair]
> 
> For ease of reference, the existing SIPCORE charter is athttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/>
> Thanks!
> /a