Subject: [dispatch] Summary: topics put forth for IETF-80

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:50:32 -0600

Hi folks,
The following summarizes the topics (in no particular order) that folks have
put forth for discussion in the time preceeding IETF-80.  Certainly, there
has been lots of good discussion on some of the topics. However, for others,
there has been little, if any, WG discussion.  In order the chairs/ADs to
determine how to dispatch the topics and allocate agenda time, we need
feedback from the WG members.  I have included links to the primary threads
of discussion and annotated those which require more discussion with an
asterisk (*).  Please respond to the separate threads rather than this email
so that we can better track feedback.  If I missed your topic, please let us
know ASAP.  Note, that per the IETF-80 timeline, we will summarize the
dispatchment of the items on Feb. 7th, announcing those that will be given
f2f agenda time in Prague.

Thanks,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair

1) RTCWEB:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03171.html

Excellent feedback and discussion thus far. 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

Updated charter posted. More responses requested.

3) Q4S: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03071.html

Updated charter (version 2)  posted.  Feedback requested.

4) 3892bis (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03162.html

Feedback required.

5) SIP Action Referral:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03211.html

Proposal to move this to SPLICES WG.

6) Restful API for ACH (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03212.html

This topic was previously discussed in BLISS, where there was support for
it. However, BLISS is intending to close, thus the work item was sent to
DISPATCH.  Feedback requested as to whether this functionality is useful -
i.e., will folks implement this?

7) SIP Interconnect guidelines (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03112.html

One question to consider is whether this is something within the scope of
RAI or whether the work might be better done in another Forum (e.g., SIP
Forum).  Feedback as to whether folks think this document is useful is
requested, as well as whether folks think it's relevant and whether it
should be published in the IETF in some form.

8) Reason header in responses:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03296.html

Roland has produced a new draft that documents the solution as an UPDATE to
RFC 3326.  Appears to be
general agreement that this is the best approach. Details need to be worked.

9) End-to-End Session Identification (*):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03321.html

A new draft has been submitted on this topic - draft-jones-ipmc-session-id.
 There's been a small amount of feedback and there's been no discussion of
the Session ID topic since IETF-78.  However, this topic comes up every 6
months or so. Group needs to decide if they want to solve this problem and
the scope/applicability of the solution.

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:24:48 +0200

Folks,

> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#RAI

Yes, we will have an RTCWEB BOF in Prague. The goal is to try and form a
new WG. As you all know, the process of chartering a WG is a scoping
process aimed to define what is in and what is out of the scope of the
WG. Given that RTCWEB is a large area, there may be topics that come up
during the discussions that do not end up in the charter of the WG for
some reason. If that was the case, we would decide what to do with them
in DISPATCH afterward. Right now, our focus should be to work on a good
charter proposal.

Cheers,

Gonzalo