Subject: [Ecrit] ECRIT Status Update - December 2008

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:53:35 +0200

ECRIT Status Update - December 2008
===================================

1) draft-ietf-ecrit-framework / draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp

Action Item: Brian to resubmit a new draft version covering the discussions
around location protocols. Date: Early January 2009

2) draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync

Roger Marshall is the PROTO shepherd for this document.

Action Item: Roger is going todo a pre-WGLC review of the document. Date:
Early January 2009

3) draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter

Updated draft based on IETF #73 discussions posted by Milan, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05779.html

Action item: Hannes to ask working group to confirm IETF#73 discussion. 

4) RFC5031bis

Action item: Henning to submit a proposal for RFC5031bis with a modified
allocation policy, as described in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05769.html

Date: Early January 2009

5) draft-rosen-ecrit-premature-disconnect-rqmts

We are a bit in a deadlock situation with this document. So far, the group
did not accept the document as is and there was a bit of "unhappiness" with
the current draft editor, Brian. Since the document is not a WG item the
working group chairs cannot change the editor. No other draft proposal has
been made so far either. 

There are four options: 
a) We have to wait for Brian to come up with a version that is acceptable to
the group.	
b) We wait for someone else to make a proposal (in the form of a draft) that
is acceptable. 
c) We chairs ask the group whether the current document is acceptable as a
STARTING POINT and provide the commitment that the draft editor will be
changed once the doc is a WG item. 

We will try item (c) and see what the group thinks about it. 

Action item: Hannes to post a mail to the list. 

6) PSAP Call Back

We currently have at least 3 solutions for dealing with callbacks from
PSAPs. We have to pick one. 

Action item: Hannes to post a mail to the list about this aspect to the
list. 

7) Rechartering

Action item: Hannes to post a proposal to the list. Long overdue already. 

8) draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace

We had some discussions about this document triggered by mails around
IETF#73 asking for the purpose and the scope. 
I read through the e-mail exchange but I need to read through some
RFCs/drafts as well in order to summarize the topic. 

A few folks have provided feedback (James, Brian, Janet, Keith) but more
reviews from the rest of the group would be useful.  

Action item: Hannes to summarize the discussions and to draw a conclusion. 
 
9) Feedback needed for other documents

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-ecrit-rough-loc-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-service-classification-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosen-ecrit-ecall-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-norreys-ecrit-authority2individuals-requireme
nts-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-early-warning-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-04.t
xt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sun-ecrit-shelter-service-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wolf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary-00.txt

I particularly want to point to the last document. We wanted to give Karl
Heinz a possibility to present his document at IETF#73 but then we ran out
of time. 

Please pick a document and read through it. 

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:22:18 -0600

>Action item: Hannes to summarize the discussions and to draw a conclusion.

Hannes - why are you artificially creating such a high hurdle for 
this ID to progress?

The WG hummed for this ID to become a WG item in Dublin.

There hasn't been one other opinion contrary to this (save for yours) 
on the list or at the Minneapolis meeting. Therefore, it is 
impossible to conclude with evidence that anyone other than you are 
delaying this progression.

Many have expressed in email to the list, and in person at 
Minneapolis to you that you are not understanding the topic as much 
as you believe (SIP signaling and SIP header usage, and this includes 
the SIP chair that has given you his opinion in front of others), and 
each of the rest of us (that have voiced an opinion) are in unison in 
our understanding (and have attempted nearly countless times to 
explain how you have a misunderstanding of SIP communications).

Furthermore - your co-chair does not agree with you, and believes as 
others do that this ID is needed, necessary and wants it to progress 
- including other SDOs and organizations (NENA for one) that want to 
reference this document as an RFC.

James

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:39:16 +0200

Hi James, 
 
>>A few folks have provided feedback (James, Brian, Janet, Keith) but 
>>more reviews from the rest of the group would be useful.
>>
>Hannes - why are you artificially creating such a high hurdle 
>for this ID to progress?

Summarizing a discussion is not "a high hurdle". 

>The WG hummed for this ID to become a WG item in Dublin.

I know. Like the group did with a number of other items. 
Officially, the document is not a WG item yet given that we would
require the charter to change as mentioned at the last meeting. 

>
>There hasn't been one other opinion contrary to this (save for 
>yours) on the list or at the Minneapolis meeting.

Well. I raised several issues which I would like to summarize. 
To pick one "PSAP callback" where there does not seem to be agreement,
referencing Brian:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05686.html

> Therefore, 
>it is impossible to conclude with evidence that anyone other 
>than you are delaying this progression.

Delaying? Given that we have to change the charter first before this
document can actually be picked up as an item (like the other documents
as well) I am not delaying anything here. 

Getting the new charter approved is only possible if we are able to
finish our main items, as Jon says. Despite our pushing Phone BCP and
Framework are still not finished.

>Minneapolis to you that you are not understanding the topic as 
>much as you believe (SIP signaling and SIP header usage, and 
>this includes the SIP chair that has given you his opinion in 
>front of others), and each of the rest of us (that have voiced 
>an opinion) are in unison in our understanding (and have 
>attempted nearly countless times to explain how you have a 
>misunderstanding of SIP communications).

Maybe I don't understand this particular item well enough. If I don't
understand it given that I am working in this space already for many
years gives me the impression that maybe I am not the only one. At least
in the past I was never wrong with such an assumption. 

I don't think it can be wrong to ask questions about documents we have
in the group (even if they appear irrelevant to the authors of the
mechanism as he knows it better than anybody else). 
 
>Furthermore - your co-chair does not agree with you, and 
>believes as others do that this ID is needed, necessary and 
>wants it to progress
>- including other SDOs and organizations (NENA for one) that 
>want to reference this document as an RFC.

I am actually participating in various NENA conf. calls and have
participated in discussions around resource priority for
citizen-to-authority emergency calls. I have not heard you on those
calls. 

In short, I am not delaying -- I am trying to understand. No reason to
worry. 

Ciao
Hannes