Subject: Re: [RAI] Dispatch Charter - draft B

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:09:38 -0600

Overall, this looks good. The only thing would be that I'm wondering
what form is expected for Item 1).  I'm assuming that it could range
anywhere from a single slide summarizing mailing list discussion on a
topic to a fairly comprehensive problem statement draft.  It would also
seem that if a draft were too large or broad that it might automatically
get rejected - i.e., it's important for folks to solve one problem at a
time, rather than attempt to define a broad architecture (or a solution
for world hunger or a complete service architecture, for example).   If
that's the intent, it might be good to add some text around that. 

Also, is the idea to give everyone or anyone time or will there be a bar
for mailing list discussion and interest in a topic?   I think we do
want to avoid the 5 minute slot/gong show model that never worked well
at all in SIPPING. Perhaps, following the model we've used in SIPPING
more recently where the chairs will accept one or two charts to bring
attention to a topic, rather than giving the topic agenda time if
there's been no mailing list discussion (which for the audience is what
typically will happen when you submit a doc at the deadline with no
prior mailing list discussion). 

There is also one nit:
 Reconsideration of proposal ->  Reconsideration of proposals

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Cullen Jennings
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [RAI] Dispatch Charter - draft B

Updated draft for comments,

Thanks, Cullen & Jon

-----------------------------------------
Rev B - Feb 27

  The Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for
  new work in the RAI area and identify, or help create, an appropriate
  venue for the work. Options for handling new work include:

  - Assigning the work to an existing WG.
  - Developing a proposal for a BOF.
  - Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG
    or Exploratory Group. This option will primarily be used with
    fairly mature and well-defined efforts.

  A major objective of the DISPATCH WG is to provide timely, clear
  dispositions of new efforts. Where there is consensus to take
  on new work, the WG will strive to quickly find a home for it.
  Reconsideration of proposal which have failed to gather consensus
  will be prioritized behind proposals for new work which have not
  yet been considered. In general, requests for reconsideration
  should only be made once a proposal has been significantly
  revised.

  The DISPATCH WG will also operate as an area wide WG where ideas can
  be discussed that do not currently have a logical venue for the work
  to be done. As part of this function, the WG will evaluate SIP Event
  Packages that were not developed inside some other area working group.

  Guiding principles will include:

  1. Providing a clear problem statement for proposed new work.

  2. Prioritizing new efforts so that RAI does not take on more work
     than it can effectively complete.

  3. Looking for commonalities among ongoing development efforts.
     Such commonalities may indicate the need to develop more
     general, reusable components.

  4. Protecting the architectural integrity of RAI protocols and
ensuring
     that work has general applicability.

  The WG may take on some of the previous work items from the SIPPING
  working group to allow a smooth transition.

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

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:34:02 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mary
> Barnes
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:10 PM
>

Actually I find the requirement for mailing list discussion to be a real downer.  Mailing list discussion indicates contention or disagreement (or in some cases confusion, as the recent offer/answer discussion on SIP seems to mostly be); but it does not translate directly to WG interest.  And unfortunately email volume also has to do with timing - when the draft was released, in terms of whether people notice or not or even had the time to monitor the list.

I know WG chairs have nothing much else to go on, but it's really sad that we have to email other people to ask them to email the list in order to get agenda time.  And I kinda liked the gong show.  We just need to be faster at hitting the gong. :)

-hadriel
[I know I'm a broken record on this topic, but oh well... at least I'm consistent]

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:00:04 -0600

I can't entirely disagree, but the problem is that when someone submits
a -00 document, just a few weeks before the meeting (and that's when all
the documents arrive) on a topic that's had no discussion previously, it
gives little time for folks to consider the problem before the meeting
and thus any discussion time in the WG session isn't particularly
effective. So, perhaps we define some earlier deadline for topics for
the next meeting just to give the WG time to consider and think through
the topic ahead of time. But, we do still need to use the mailing list
as it's totally ineffective to discuss topics just 3 times a year for
15-20 minutes at a time. 

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:34 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [RAI] Dispatch Charter - draft B

> Mary Barnes

> there's been no mailing list discussion (which for the audience is 
> what typically will happen when you submit a doc at the deadline with 
> no prior mailing list discussion).

Actually I find the requirement for mailing list discussion to be a real
downer.  Mailing list discussion indicates contention or disagreement
(or in some cases confusion, as the recent offer/answer discussion on
SIP seems to mostly be); but it does not translate directly to WG
interest.  And unfortunately email volume also has to do with timing -
when the draft was released, in terms of whether people notice or not or
even had the time to monitor the list.

I know WG chairs have nothing much else to go on, but it's really sad
that we have to email other people to ask them to email the list in
order to get agenda time.  And I kinda liked the gong show.  We just
need to be faster at hitting the gong. :)

-hadriel
[I know I'm a broken record on this topic, but oh well... at least I'm
consistent]

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:02:37 -0600

>   fairly mature and well-defined efforts.

One critical and insufficiently used option is the "gong". That is, we  
MUST be able to reject and defer work proposals. We might want this in  
the charter.

--
Dean

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:17:16 -0800

> > new work in the RAI area and identify, or help create, an 
> > appropriate venue for the work. Options for handling new work 
> > include:
> >

A gong is only useful if the principals understand why the
gong was struck.  On the famous television show, some people 
tried to get a gong -- it was funny.  At SIPPING (or DISPATCH),
I assure you that the principals are not trying to get a gong.

The charter should explain what sort of feedback is given to
principals for rejected submissions:  point to another WG
(ugh, that's what DISPATCH is trying to avoid, no?), another
standards organization (e.g., 3GPP), "no, we don't like that
idea", or whatever.  The DISPATCH charter should explain this
with some crispness.

-d

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:23:33 -0500

OK, now that we've executed code for something like DISPATCH once...

> idea", or whatever.  The DISPATCH charter should explain this

Gonzalo asked me to take notes for the DISPATCH session yesterday, and
here's what my notes summarize as:

1.1.1            Theo Zourzouvillys  Via Cookies
draft-zourzouvillys-sip-via-cookie-02

What problem do we want Theo to work on? Don't want to take a hum for each
attack - we'll discuss on the list.

1.1.2            Christer Holmberg  Keepalive Without Outbound
draft-holmberg-sip-keep-03

We'll take the hum on this draft on the list, after Christer submits a
completed 04 draft.

1.1.3            Hadriel Kaplan  Secure Call ID
draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00

We'll continue discussions on the list.

1.1.4            Hadriel Kaplan  Session ID
draft-kaplan-sip-session-id-01

Will discuss this draft on the list...

1.1.5            Alan Johnston  User to User for ISDN
draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-07

Looking for continued feedback on this list.

1.1.6            Alan Johnston  Batch NOTIFYs
draft-johnston-sipping-batch-notify-00

More list discussion would be great.

1.1.7            Salvatore Loreto  Context-ID Requirements
draft-loreto-sipping-context-id-requirements

Need more discussion onlist.

1.1.8            Salvatore Loreto  Changes to Referred-By
draft-loreto-sipping-3892bis-01

1.1.9            Hadriel Kaplan  Updates to the Updates to Asserted Identity
in SIP
draft-kaplan-sipping-pai-responses-00

More conversation on the list, please.

1.1.10       Radu State  Digest Relay Attack
draft-state-sip-relay-attack-00

Gonzalo - there is interest, need to decide what the next step is.

So... I think that 8 out of 10 of the drafts presented weren't gonged, but 
they didn't get to a point where we know what to do with them, either.

This wasn't quite as bad as the SubIP area used to be (IPO and CCAMP 
routinely had 20 drafts presented at six minutes per draft, and we didn't 
have time to talk about any of the drafts because we had to start the 
presentation on the next draft), but we definitely need to get better as a 
community at converging on stuff that's NOT controversial before we get to a 
face-to-face meeting, so we can spend significant amounts of time on stuff 
that IS controversial when we're face-to-face.

This would be good to think about, while we're thinking about the DISPATCH 
charter, IMO.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:33:16 -0700

Hi,

yes, including so many drafts in the agenda does not make sense. More 
focused agendas where things can be actually discussed are much better 
and the way to go.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> So... I think that 8 out of 10 of the drafts presented weren't gonged, 
> but they didn't get to a point where we know what to do with them, either.
> 
> routinely had 20 drafts presented at six minutes per draft, and we 
> didn't have time to talk about any of the drafts because we had to start 
> the presentation on the next draft), but we definitely need to get 
> better as a community at converging on stuff that's NOT controversial 
> before we get to a face-to-face meeting, so we can spend significant 
> amounts of time on stuff that IS controversial when we're face-to-face.
> 
> This would be good to think about, while we're thinking about the 
> DISPATCH charter, IMO.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
>

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:55:09 -0700

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> focused agendas where things can be actually discussed are much better and
> the way to go.
>

This was a very educational exercise. I am sure I learned a lot, but I do
not really like what I think I learned.

We did not appear to be focused on making decisions, we seemed to be merely
trying to beat the presenters, or at least beat the clock.

I never heard "If we thought this needed doing, should this be SIPCORE,
another existing working group, or BOF material?"

This could be a training thing, a schedule thing, or a chair-style thing.
Maybe all of the three, or something else.

I think it would be useful to get some people together for a recap-and-hash
before the Friday meeting.

--
Dean

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:33:04 -0500

I'm turning into a pumpkin on Friday morning, awfully early - care to name a place/time "soon", so I can contribute if I'm available?

Thanks,

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean Willis 
  To: Gonzalo Camarillo 
  Cc: Spencer Dawkins ; Dan Wing ; Cullen Jennings ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [RAI] Dispatch Charter - draft B

  On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi,

    yes, including so many drafts in the agenda does not make sense. More focused agendas where things can be actually discussed are much better and the way to go.

  This was a very educational exercise. I am sure I learned a lot, but I do not really like what I think I learned.

  We did not appear to be focused on making decisions, we seemed to be merely trying to beat the presenters, or at least beat the clock.

  I never heard "If we thought this needed doing, should this be SIPCORE, another existing working group, or BOF material?" 

  This could be a training thing, a schedule thing, or a chair-style thing. Maybe all of the three, or something else.

  I think it would be useful to get some people together for a recap-and-hash before the Friday meeting.

  --
  Dean