Subject: [RAI] DRINKS and SIP conflict

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:45:02 -0400

[sorry for cross-posting, but I doubt most drinks folks are on the RAI list]

Howdy,
I am disturbed that DRINKS and SIP meet at the same time in Dublin.  I know it's easy and unfair to play arm-chair scheduler, when there are competent, diligent people trying to create the best schedule under impossible constraints.  However, I can't help but play the home-game, because it is unimaginable to me that SIP is allowed to conflict with any RAI working group.

Alternatives:
1) The meeting slot right before DRINKs (Thurs 13-15:00) has no RAI WG meeting.
2) I am fairly confident there would be less impact with DRINKS conflicting with XCON or MEDIACTRL instead of conflicting with SIP.
3) I am extremely confident there would be less impact with DRINKS conflicting with P2PSIP.

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:54:51 -0500

Hadriel,

I tend to agree with your concerns and proposal that an XCON or
MEDIACTRL conflict might have been better, however, XCON and MEDIACTRL
is also comprised of mostly SIP folks, including chairs that likely also
have an interest in DRINKS.  

My understanding was that the Thurs 13-1500 slot was not scheduled
against a RAI group due to the TSV TANA BoF, which is related to the
p2pi work/ALTO Bof in RAI.  

I don't think it's possible to avoid conflicts and IMHO, the most
important thing is to ensure that the conflicts vary over time, so that
folks can attend the various WGs that the need to attend say 5/6 times
(I personally have had and almost 1/2 conflict for attending MEDIACTRL).

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Hadriel Kaplan
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:45 AM
To: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
Cc: IETF DRINKS WG; [email-masked]
Subject: [RAI] DRINKS and SIP conflict

[sorry for cross-posting, but I doubt most drinks folks are on the RAI
list]

Howdy,
I am disturbed that DRINKS and SIP meet at the same time in Dublin.  I
know it's easy and unfair to play arm-chair scheduler, when there are
competent, diligent people trying to create the best schedule under
impossible constraints.  However, I can't help but play the home-game,
because it is unimaginable to me that SIP is allowed to conflict with
any RAI working group.

Alternatives:
1) The meeting slot right before DRINKs (Thurs 13-15:00) has no RAI WG
meeting.
2) I am fairly confident there would be less impact with DRINKS
conflicting with XCON or MEDIACTRL instead of conflicting with SIP.
3) I am extremely confident there would be less impact with DRINKS
conflicting with P2PSIP.

-hadriel

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:59:12 -0400

So an RAI BOF (ALTO) gets its own no-conflict time slot... a TSV BOF (TANA) gets its own no-conflict timeslot... but a full RAI WG (DRINKS) has to conflict with a WG it is directly related to and is essentially the main meat of RAI (SIP).  Does that make sense?

Does it make sense that a WG chartered to focus on routing and location data for SIP peering (a fairly high-layer thing), *cannot* conflict with either of two BOFs related to transport layer issues with P2P protocols, but *can* conflict with SIP itself??

-hadriel

> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:55 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan; Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [RAI] DRINKS and SIP conflict
>
> Hadriel,
>

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:00:44 -0400

MEDIACTRL would have been a better ... so AD's any last minute hope of
change?

>  Mary Barnes
>  Subject: Re: [RAI] DRINKS and SIP conflict
>  
>  Hadriel,
>

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:15:10 +0200

I suspect the reason for the SIP/DRINKS conflict is that it got missed
off the conflict setting when we made the agenda request - possibly
because it wasn't a WG at that time:

  First Priority: avt, bliss, ecrit, enum, geopriv, iptel, mediactrl,
mmusic, p2psip, sigtran, simple, sipping, speechsc, speermint, xcon
  Second Priority: behave lemonade

But Cullen was aware of the conflict and decided it was the lesser of a
number of evils.

I must admit I have a similar problem with BOFs with an extended list of
concerns, for example we cannot apparently schedule them on Friday
morning in case people go home early - that consideration apparently
doesn't apply to WG (I actually believe we should extend IETF meetings
into a 13:00 - 15:00 session on Friday). 

And the need for scheduling of BOFs (which are by definition
unchartered) apparently takes precedence over time durations to discuss
chartered WG items - at a time when we are being told to exclude
unchartered items from the WG agendas themselves (which is the situation
we found ourselves in at IETF#71).

Maybe this is scope for some IETF plenary discussion.

I would note that SIP originally requested 4 hours, and fought back
against being reduced to 2 hours as it was at the last meeting. Having
now done the agenda planning for SIP - I believe that 4 hour request was
the correct and appropriate request.

Regards

Keith

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:59 PM
> To: Mary Barnes; Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
> So an RAI BOF (ALTO) gets its own no-conflict time slot... a 
> TSV BOF (TANA) gets its own no-conflict timeslot... but a 
> full RAI WG (DRINKS) has to conflict with a WG it is directly 
> related to and is essentially the main meat of RAI (SIP).  
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Does it make sense that a WG chartered to focus on routing 
> and location data for SIP peering (a fairly high-layer 
> thing), *cannot* conflict with either of two BOFs related to 
> transport layer issues with P2P protocols, but *can* conflict 
> with SIP itself??
> 
> -hadriel
> 
> > is also comprised of mostly SIP folks, including chairs that likely 
> > also have an interest in DRINKS.
> >
> > important thing is to ensure that the conflicts vary over time, so 
> > that folks can attend the various WGs that the need to 
> attend say 5/6 
> > times (I personally have had and almost 1/2 conflict for 
> attending MEDIACTRL).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mary.
> >

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:10:45 -0400

>  DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>  Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:15 AM
>  To: Hadriel Kaplan; Mary Barnes; Cullen Jennings;
>  [email-masked]
>  Cc: [email-masked]

When I scheduled DRINKS SIP was clearly on my First Priority.

>  
>  But Cullen was aware of the conflict and decided it was the lesser of
>  a number of evils.
>  

Because no one cares about SIP any more?  <waiting for the flames> :-)

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:03:27 -0500

On 7/17/08 11:10 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> Because no one cares about [the] SIP [WG] any more? <waiting for the 
> flames> :-)

Hey, when the top two topics of discussion are "fixing INFO" and "fixing 
what SBCs break," it's hard to argue with you.

/a

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:32:53 -0400

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam
> Roach
>

Yup, it's no fun to fix problems based on real deployments, compared with trying to indulge our Skype-envy.
<now *that* should start the flames!> :)

-hadriel

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:07:30 -0400

Arguably, BoFs in general need broader attendance because we decide what
work we want to do then. For many efforts, community members want a
voice in what work we're going to charter, but offer less input into the
nuts and bolts of how it actually gets done once a WG has been approved.
Historically, many WGs with a modest number of contributors launched
from well-attended and fiercely-debated BoFs.

Scheduling RAI is always balancing various evils these days. The way we
reach conclusions about conflicts is honestly pretty arbitrary, but a
lot of it comes down to trying to find the least overlapping communities
of interest, sessions with different staffing (including presenters) and
then the host of random constraints like chairs who can't be there
certain days and whatnot. I seem to recall that this has in the past led
us to run ENUM against SIP, even.

Also, in response to Keith's note about Friday afternoons, be careful
what you wish for...

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:59 AM
To: Mary Barnes; Cullen Jennings; Peterson, Jon
Cc: IETF DRINKS WG; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [RAI] DRINKS and SIP conflict

So an RAI BOF (ALTO) gets its own no-conflict time slot... a TSV BOF
(TANA) gets its own no-conflict timeslot... but a full RAI WG (DRINKS)
has to conflict with a WG it is directly related to and is essentially
the main meat of RAI (SIP).  Does that make sense?

Does it make sense that a WG chartered to focus on routing and location
data for SIP peering (a fairly high-layer thing), *cannot* conflict with
either of two BOFs related to transport layer issues with P2P protocols,
but *can* conflict with SIP itself??

-hadriel

> is also comprised of mostly SIP folks, including chairs that likely
also
> important thing is to ensure that the conflicts vary over time, so
that

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:30:10 -0500

>  Second Priority: behave lemonade

Yep, that's my fault. What's DRINKS? ;-)

And why didn't THEY specify no conflict with SIP? After all, they're  
the new team -- they should know what they conflict with. Us old stuck- 
in-the-mud and too-busy-to-look-up curmudgeons can't be expected to  
forecast their appearance.

--
Dean

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:40:16 -0400

>  Dean Willis
>  Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:30 PM
>  To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>  Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Hadriel Kaplan

Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP (drinks)

AKA provisioning ENUM servers and registries.

>  forecast their appearance.

As the resident curmudgeon and chair of DRINKS ... yes we did specify no
conflicts with the major SIP WG's.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:42:25 -0400

IMHO all BOF's should be scheduled on Friday ..then you can see who is
really interested in doing the work.

>  Peterson, Jon
>  Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:08 PM
>  To: Hadriel Kaplan; Mary Barnes; Cullen Jennings

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:49:56 -0400

> From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email-masked]]
>

That's a good rationale.  Of course under that rationale one could argue that for the first couple meetings of a new WG there is also broad interest, to voice opinions on requirements, and to figure out if they're really interested in the nuts/bolts or not. :)

> us to run ENUM against SIP, even.

Right, so again I totally get the "there will be conflicts" bit.  Unavoidable, understood.  But the bit I don't get is how anything could conflict *less* with SIP-WG than it conflicts with other relatively unrelated groups.  Like DRINKS with P2PSIP (which are like oil and water, afaict), or DRINKS with XCON.

-hadriel

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:46:17 -0500

> AKA provisioning ENUM servers and registries.

That sounds somewhat silly, if I understand it.

Do we require specialized protocols standards for provisioning DNS  
servers? An LDAP server?

> conflicts with the major SIP WG's.

Ah. Well then, I'm sorry your wish was not granted.

--
Dean