Subject: [dispatch] Summary: Topics for IETF-80

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:49:47 -0600

Hi folks,

The following two topics will be allocated agenda time during the f2f
session in Prague:

1) Q4S:
(Updated) Charter:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03376.html
Related document:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aranda-dispatch-q4s/

2)  Reason header in responses:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03296.html
Most recent document (UPDATES RFC 3326):

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jesske-dispatch-update3326-reason-responses/

In addition, the following topics have been dispatched (i.e., the work for
these items to move forward has been completed in the DISPATCH WG):

1) RTCWEB:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03171.html
An official Bof has been approved for this topic:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#RAI

2) VIPR: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03300.html
Consensus for the chartering of this work.  The most recent charter has been
forwarded to ADs to progress. An adhoc DISPATCH session is planned (since
the WG will not be chartered prior to IETF-80).

3) SIP Action Referral:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03211.html
Work item moved to SPLICES WG. * *
*
*
4) SIP Interconnect guidelines (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03112.html
The only responses were from folks that felt this would be appropriate for
an organization such SIP Forum as long as it remains a profile - i.e., if
the work item requires protocol changes then it is not appropriate for a
forum to take this on.

The following topics require more discussion and WG feedback in order to
determine the best way forward:

1) 3892bis (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03162.html
There's been very little discussion.  However, if there is interest this
work item likely needs to go through SIPCORE.

2) Restful API for ACH (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03212.html
There were two responses as to the interest in this work item, in particular
whether folks would implement this: one indicated it was too late and there
is one individual interested in this work item.  Thus, at this point, there
does not appear to be enough interest in moving this forward.

3) End-to-End Session Identification (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03321.html
Based on ML discussion, there is still Interest in a "Session ID" solution.
 Group needs to decide exactly what problem they want to solve (i.e., need a
clear problem statement) and define the scope of the solution (e.g.,
general, specific deployment scenarios, etc.).

4) Media server overload:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03242.html
Needs additional WG discussion and clarification of problem to be solved and
scope thereof. Note, that there are additional threads of discussion on the
SIPREC and MEDIACTRL WG mailing lists:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec/current/msg01411.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl/current/msg01691.html

Regards,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair