Subject: [sipcore] Call for consensus: draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:33:17 -0500

[as chair]

As you can see below, the SIMPLE working group has decided to remove 
draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis from its chartered 
milestones.

SIPCORE has a closely related work item: 
draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements.
It has been evaluated by the IESG, but has not been approved for 
publication. The issue that is blocking its publication involves some 
security related issues, which were to be addressed in the 
interdomain-scaling-analysis. Further, the actual description of the 
driving factors for the presence-scaling-requirements work are present 
only in the interdomain-scaling-analysis work.

With the interdomain-scaling-analysis work abandoned, the only path for 
publishing presence-scaling-requirements would be to bring it back to 
the working group, add the context that had been provided by the 
interdomain-scaling-analysis draft, and address the IESG concerns that 
have been raised around security and scaling.

Given that the community of interest -- or disinterest, as the case may 
be -- for the abandoned interdomain-scaling-analysis document is almost 
certainly identical to that for the presence-scaling-requirements 
document, it is a safe assumption that SIPCORE can similarly remove the 
presence-scaling-requirements milestone from its charter.

So, I am posing the same question as the SIMPLE chairs: with the 
interdomain-scaling-analysis work abandoned, is the 
presence-scaling-requirements work still relevant? Are people still 
interested in working on it? By that, I mean willing to spend time doing 
focused reviews, offering feedback and maybe even text?

Silence will be interpreted in the negative.

/a

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis
Date: 	Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:55:48 -0500
From: 	Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
To: 	Simple WG <[email-masked]>

Hi,

We've had no expression of interest in continuing this effort. We will 
ask our ADs to remove the milestone.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Sep 24, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> It's been almost a week, and no one has responded. If we don't hear 
> otherwise from people who want to invest their time to work on this 
> draft by Monday, we will ask the ADs to remove this milestone from the 
> SIMPLE charter.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> (as chair)
>>
>> draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis has been stalled for a 
>> while now. We handed it over to the IESG some time ago, but received 
>> AD feedback indicating it needed significant work.   It has been 
>> cycle starved since then. The author may be in a position to start 
>> working on it again.
>> *
>> *
>> *My question to the working group is, is this work still relevant? 
>> Are people still interested in working on it? By that, I mean willing 
>> to spend time doing focused reviews, offering feedback and maybe even 
>> text?*
>> *
>> *
>> *Silence will be interpreted in the negative. *
>> *
>> *
>> *Thanks,*
>> *
>> *
>> *Ben.*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simple mailing list
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Adam Roach - SIPCORE Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:54:44 -0500

[as chair]

It has been nearly three weeks, and there is been no expression of 
interest in continuing this work. We will ask the area directors to 
remove it from our charter and to mark the draft as "dead."

/a

On 10/5/10 10:33 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> With the interdomain-scaling-analysis work abandoned, the only path 
> for publishing presence-scaling-requirements would be to bring it back 
> to the working group, add the context that had been provided by the 
> Given that the community of interest -- or disinterest, as the case 
> may be -- for the abandoned interdomain-scaling-analysis document is 
> almost certainly identical to that for the 
> presence-scaling-requirements document, it is a safe assumption that 
> SIPCORE can similarly remove the presence-scaling-requirements 
> milestone from its charter.
>
> interested in working on it? By that, I mean willing to spend time 
> doing focused reviews, offering feedback and maybe even text?
>
>> draft by Monday, we will ask the ADs to remove this milestone from 
>> the SIMPLE charter.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>>> draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis has been stalled for 
>>> a while now. We handed it over to the IESG some time ago, but 
>>> received AD feedback indicating it needed significant work.   It has 
>>> been cycle starved since then. The author may be in a position to 
>>> start working on it again.
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Are people still interested in working on it? By that, I mean 
>>> willing to spend time doing focused reviews, offering feedback and 
>>> maybe even text?*
>>> *
>>> *