Subject: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:18:43 -0500

Hi folks,

A reminder to folks that submitted proposals for the initial deadline
that the "charter proposals" are due next Monday, June 8th.  The
following summarizes the proposals (some already having detailed charter
proposals) that have been put forth:
1) 3rd party auth:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00052.html
2) CBUS:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00083.html
3) cc-uui:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00073.html
4) CLF:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00066.html
5) Codec:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00080.html
6) Sound level indicator:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00071.html
7) On demand media/app sharing:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00076.html

Also, if there are already drafts associated with your charter proposal,
please provide appropriate links in your email. 

For WG participants, there are less than two weeks left (June 15th) to
provide input and feedback on the proposals in terms of whether there is
sufficient interest to warrant discussion during a f2f session in
Stockholm or whether the items can be dispatched prior to Stockholm. 

Also, please let me know if I've missed something. 

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

As mentioned previously, we are setting earlier deadlines for discussing
topics in DISPATCH to allow time for constructive discussions prior to
the WG session at IETF-75: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg00006.html

We are proposing to follow the deadlines for BoFs for IETF-75:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/75/cutoff-dates.html
since we anticipate that many of the topic discussions will follow a
"mini-BoF" format, based on the DISPATCH charter:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dispatch-charter.html

Thus, the following are the proposed deadlines:

May 25th - Cutoff date to notify the chairs and DISPATCH WG mailing list
of plans to submit a proposal, including the topic of the proposal. This
will help folks with similar topics to work together before the meeting.
If a preliminary charter proposal is available at this point, please
include a pointer to it.

June 8th - Cutoff for charter proposals for topics. A charter proposal
must consist of a minimum of a problem statement and at least one
milestone/deliverable. This deadline will allow time for consideration
of proposals that could potentially be "dispatched" prior to the WG
session.

June 15th - Topics that are to be the focus of IETF-75 are announced.
The idea here is to focus the discussion over the weeks preceding
IETF-75 on these main topics, noting that any updates to the documents
are due 4 weeks later.  This will ensure we have constructive
discussions before the meeting and are actually able to determine
consensus as to where work should be progressed (e.g., separate BoF, a
new WG, an existing WG, individual document, etc.) at IETF-75. Contrary
to the past approach in the SIPPING WG, we anticipate determining
consensus as to the disposition of a work item based on the level of
"commitment" by individuals to actually contribute to the work (e.g.,
conference calls, design team mailing lists, contributing text, etc.)
rather than based on "interest" in doing the work.  Note, that the exact
disposition for a topic may (per the usual process) require follow-up
and confirmation by the ADS and/or IESG (e.g., for a new WG, Bof,
individually sponsored document, etc.) or with another WG to ensure
agreement with the DISPATCH WG consensus for the topic.

Note the intention is not necessarily to preclude folks submitting
documents on other topics, however, it is very unlikely there would be
agenda time allocated to documents/topics submitted after the deadlines.
We can include one or two slides on these topics in the DISPATCH WG
chair charts, as we've done in the past in the SIPPING WG chair charts,
so that the authors can gather other interested parties to contribute to
the work. 

We appreciate the patience of the WG as we evolve the model for bringing
in new work and welcome feedback. 

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:08:25 +0300

Hi Mary,
Looking at the proposal I would like to point out that the last three items
were typically discussed before we had the dispatch group in AVT, XCON  or
MMUSIC. 
I think that the people who follow AVT and MMUSIC are not the typical
dispatch subscriber and if a meaningful discussion is solicited than those
message should have gone also to the AVT and MMUSIC mailing list. I did
forward the codec email to the AVT working group and urged people to join
the discussion on the codec topic but maybe the dispatch chairs should look
at the proposals and send them to current working groups that may provide
better feedback

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs 

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

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:41:06 -0500

Hi Roni,

I don't disagree that any technical work for the last 3 might fit into
the WGs you suggest. However, the point of the discussion is to agree
how to proceed with the work - i.e., should it go to WG x or does it
warrant a separate WG/BoF or is it something for which there is not
sufficient interest that the work should either be progressed as
individual or abandoned.  I agree that those last 3 categories are
beyond the scope (for the most part) of work that we discussed in the
SIPPING WG in the past. But, the role of DISPATCH is far broader than
SIPPING: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dispatch-charter.html
" 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." 

There is no mention that the proposals must be SIP specific nor is there
any restrictions as to what sort of work should be discussed in DISPATCH
WG - if it relates to RAI in anyway, then it's appropriate.  Also, keep
in mind that there may be new mailing lists setup for detailed
discussions of some of these topics. So, I don't think it's reasonable
to suggest that anything and everything that folks that follow AVT and
MMUSIC would be interested in will always be discussed in those WGs.  As
a WG chair, I think you can do a good job of letting your WG know when
relevant topics are being discussed for folks that might not want to be
on the DISPATCH WG mailing list. I have approved quite a few posts (and
added the folks as being able to post without subscribing to the ML)
over the past week to facilitate input from folks that are not
subscribed to the DISPATCH ML. 

My understanding was that one of the reasons for the new structure was
to minimize new work having to shop for a WG - i.e., starting in one WG
and being told that the work belongs in another WG and then another,
etc.  There have been cases in the past where potential new work items
were shuttled between 3+ different WGs (with no one ever taking
ownership) and others presented in multiple WGs during a given IETF
meeting.  In general, this new approach should avoid both those
problems. 

Now, this isn't to say that all potential new work items MUST first be
discussed in DISPATCH - there will be quite clear cases where the
appropriate WG is obvious from the outset. 

And, again, we do appreciate patience as we work through this new model.

Regards,
Mary.
(as DISPATCH WG co-chair)

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Mary,
Looking at the proposal I would like to point out that the last three
items were typically discussed before we had the dispatch group in AVT,
XCON  or MMUSIC. 
I think that the people who follow AVT and MMUSIC are not the typical
dispatch subscriber and if a meaningful discussion is solicited than
those message should have gone also to the AVT and MMUSIC mailing list.
I did forward the codec email to the AVT working group and urged people
to join the discussion on the codec topic but maybe the dispatch chairs
should look at the proposals and send them to current working groups
that may provide better feedback

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:46:56 -0500

One last point - for item 6) for example, if you as chair of AVT can
gather consensus from your WG that this item is of interest, then we can
dispatch the item now (pending AD approval, of course) - i.e., there is
no requirement at all that we discuss something at a f2f meeting before
we dispatch it.  

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Roni,

" 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." 

Regards,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Mary,

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:21:29 +0300

Mary,
I was not arguing the dispatch charter. I wanted to point out that since
dispatch charter is to start discussion on any RAI new topic it would make
sense from the dispatch chairs to forward these new topics to other relevant
RAI WGs mailing lists since these lists members may not follow the dispatch
list.

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:41 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Roni,

Regards,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Mary,

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:29:56 +0300

Mary,
On item 6 I am not sure if it is AVT or XCON. One of the problems in this
request is the synchronization between the application level user of the
conference (the display name) and his media streams. Today this is handled
in the conference event package. 
Having the audio level in the mixed RTP/RTCP stream will not provide enough
information to the client to synchronize the SSRC with the name the user is
suing in the conference. The CNAME does not supply this relation. 

I think one of the challenges will be what to discuss in dispatch. I hope
that the in the f2f meeting the discussion will be not on the technical
solution but more on why it came to dispatch, why did the authors of the
draft think that it does not fit the charter of any existing WG.

Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:47 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----

Hi Roni,

Regards,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Mary,

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:08:20 +0200

Hey Roni,

> draft think that it does not fit the charter of any existing WG.

There's no mystery here, - we simply didn't know exactly where to go
with it. We are certainly not proposing a new WG. The solutions we were
considering back then involved both XCON and AVT. Dispatch therefore
seemed like the right place to go. Now, after some discussion, and the
pointers from Ingemar it seems like AVT would be the place to do this.

Cheers
Emil

-- 
Emil Ivov, Ph.D.                               30a rue de la Patrie
Project Lead                                   67300 Schiltigheim, France
SIP Communicator
[email-masked]                     FAX:   +33.1.77.62.47.31
http://sip-communicator.org                    PHONE: +33.1.77.62.43.30

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:13:02 -0500

Mary Barnes wrote:
> that the "charter proposals" are due next Monday, June 8th.  
[...]

Folks: Here is the final "charter proposal" for the SIP CLF
work.  I received a couple of comments privately on typos
and such, but most of the matter is the same as the
one distributed on May 15th.

Unless anyone has any objections, I will submit this to the
dispatch list as per Mary's instructions above on or
before Monday, June 8.

Charter proposal for SIP Common Log File (CLF) format work
==========================================================
Vijay K. Gurbani and Eric Burger

Problem Statement
=================
Well-known web servers such as Apache and web proxies like Squid
support event logging using a common log format.  The logs produced
using these de-facto standard formats are invaluable to system
administrators for trouble-shooting a server, and to tool writers
for crafting tools that mine the log files to produce reports
and trends.  These log files also enable searches for a certain
SIP message or messages, a transaction or a related set of
transactions.

Furthermore, these log files can also be used to train anomaly
detection systems and feed events into a security event management
system.  The Session Initiation Protocol does not have a common log
format, and as a result, each server supports a distinct log format
that makes it unnecessarily complex to produce tools to do trend
analysis and security detection.

Ad ad-hoc meeting was sponsored by the SIPPING WG during the San
Francisco IETF where the participants expressed interest in undertaking
this work.  Minutes from the ad-hoc are available at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg17199.html.
Since then, various discussions on CLF file format and other
assorted discussions have occurred on the SIPPING mailing list,
the sip-ops mailing list and the newly formed sip-clf mailing list.

Milestones and deliverables
===========================

1) A document enunciating the problem statement, motivation,
the possible use cases of a SIP CLF, and the list of mandatory
fields that will allow identifying transactions, grouping
transactions into dialogs, and doing the latter with provisions
for allowing the systems administrator or an automata to
correlate forked branches.  Provisions must be made to
accommodate ad-hoc fields without adversely impacting the
parsing of the mandatory parameters.

A possible starting document for this deliverable is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gurbani-sipping-clf-01

2) A document that details the byte layout of the SIP CLF
record.

The participants have done preliminary work on writing encoders
and decoders for space-separated ASCII and binary format.  The
runtime complexity to produce the space-separated ASCII and
binary CLF is comparable, however, the binary CLF is appreciably
faster in locating random records from the binary CLF file.
On the other hand, a ASCII CLF format was preferable because
it allowed for a visual interpretation of the mandatory
fields to the benefit of a human user and allowed for
expedited operations on the data using text-based tools.

Based on subsequent deliberations, a text format has been
defined which lends itself well to fast searches while still
allowing the use of visual identification and interpretation
using text-based tools.  This format is documented in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-sipping-clf-syntax-01
and can serve as a possible starting document for the
details of byte layout.

3) A document that provides reference implementation(s)
for decoding the byte layout of the CLF.

NOTE: It could very well be that three individual documents
are produced to meet the deliverables or a single document is
produced that merges all three aspects.  This can be decided
by the BoF/design team/mini working group.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:28:27 -0500

Yes, the f2f meeting should focus on the more general problem and not
the specifics of a technical solution - that's the reason we're asking
for input in the form of charters and proposed deliverables. 

Your first comment is excellent feedback for and something that should
be considered by the folks working on that problem. 

Thanks,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:30 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Mary,
On item 6 I am not sure if it is AVT or XCON. One of the problems in
this request is the synchronization between the application level user
of the conference (the display name) and his media streams. Today this
is handled in the conference event package. 
Having the audio level in the mixed RTP/RTCP stream will not provide
enough information to the client to synchronize the SSRC with the name
the user is suing in the conference. The CNAME does not supply this
relation. 

I think one of the challenges will be what to discuss in dispatch. I
hope that the in the f2f meeting the discussion will be not on the
technical solution but more on why it came to dispatch, why did the
authors of the draft think that it does not fit the charter of any
existing WG.

Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:47 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----

Hi Roni,

Regards,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Mary,

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:30:46 -0500

Roni,

I like the distributed model whereby the chairs of the specific working
group decide if the topic is of enough interest to alert their WG.  This
also removes the DISPATCH WG chairs from implying, for example, that a
particular work item should be bucketed in a specific working group
before we've had enough discussion.  

Thanks for the feedback.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:21 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Mary,
I was not arguing the dispatch charter. I wanted to point out that since
dispatch charter is to start discussion on any RAI new topic it would
make sense from the dispatch chairs to forward these new topics to other
relevant RAI WGs mailing lists since these lists members may not follow
the dispatch list.

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:41 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Roni,

Regards,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] Reminder: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Hi Mary,

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

Hi folks,

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Subject: IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH 

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary and Gonzalo
DISPATCH WG co-chairs

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:39:18 -0500

Hi folks,

A tentative agenda for the IETF-75 DISPATCH WG has been submitted:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09jul/agenda/dispatch.html

Per the various emails posted last week, we dispatched (or not) all the
topics that had been put forth by June 8th, per the following summary:
1) 3rd party auth - on the agenda to discuss what part or parts of the
problem need to be solved
2) CBUS - Christer to update his proposal at a later date
3) cc-uui - on the agenda to discuss a proposed charter (and not he
solutions)  for a new "mini" WG to progress the work which we anticipate
is a single document.  
4) CLF - a new WG has been proposed and is in the process of being
formed. We will only allocate agenda time if open issues that cannot be
resolved on the ML are identified. 
5) Codec - a separate BoF has been requested.  
6) Sound level indicator - work/discussion moved to the AVT WG
7) On demand media/app sharing - in order to dispatch this work, there
needs to be more interest and feedback on this topic

The additional topic on Session Recording was put forth after June 8th
and has not yet been considered in the IETF-75 plans.  However, if there
is enough interest in the topic and folks committed to the work, then we
may be able to allocate agenda time.  

The following summarizes the status of the other two topics that are on
the current DISPATCH WG charter:
- Overload. A new mailing list is being setup to discuss solution
options and determine the scope of work that might be done. The
expectation would be that like the other work items above, a problem
statement and proposed chartered work item(s) will be posted to the
DISPATCH WG mailing list for discussion. I'll announce the new ML as
soon as it's up and running.
- Configuration/Datasets. Dale has been looking at the documents and
trying to get WG feedback. But, there seems to be little interest in
this work. An option being considered, since this work is a dependency
for several SIP/SIPPING WG items to complete, would be to complete the
work to satisfy the current dependencies and progress as AD sponsored. 

As a reminder, the deadline for any -00 documents is July 6th, 17:00 PDT
(less than three weeks!) and the final submission deadline is July 13th,
17:00 PDT (less than 4 weeks!). 

We do appreciate everyone's patience with the new model, as well as the
level of participation.

Regards,
Mary.
DISPATCH WG co-chair

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:05:56 -0500

>may be able to allocate agenda time.

I'm rather stunned that demonstrated interest isn't being considered 
sufficiently clear on this topic to the WG chairs or ADs.

Of the last 75 messages to this list, more than half have been on 
this topic alone.

I do agree this topic was late, but that ought to be stated as the 
only reason this topic doesn't progress at IETF75. Evidence of the 
vast debate we've had on this list proves folks are embracing this 
idea - even if they do not exactly have an idea of how it will look 
when finished - which is actually what we want in a WG, right?

James

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:23:21 -0400

> Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:06 PM
> 

+1.  And considering the topic was put forth 10hrs and 1 minute after the deadline, it's not like the fewer 10 hours (and 1 minute) left people without time to think about it.  :)

-hadriel

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:21:24 -0500

Actually, the topic was 2 weeks + 10hrs and 1 minute after the deadline
- i.e., we asked for topics to be sent by May 25th, with any updates by
June 8th.

That said, certainly if folks have an interest, then we can consider
discussing in Stockholm. It would be good for someone to summarize where
the topic is - there seems to be a very broad range of views as to the
scope of the problem and what would be potential deliverables.

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:23 PM
To: James M. Polk; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

> >The additional topic on Session Recording was put forth after June 
> >8th and has not yet been considered in the IETF-75 plans.  However, 
> >if there is enough interest in the topic and folks committed to the 
> >work, then we may be able to allocate agenda time.
> 

+1.  And considering the topic was put forth 10hrs and 1 minute after 
+the deadline, it's not like the fewer 10 hours (and 1 minute) left 
+people without time to think about it.  :)

-hadriel

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:16:57 -0500

Mary Barnes wrote:
> discussing in Stockholm.

Mary: The interest is there, and I agree with James and Hadriel
that we should consider discussions in Stockholm.

Rajnish Jain, the primary editor of the session recording requirement
document, has the -00 version distributed among the co-authors
and will be updating the document with list discussions
before submission shortly.  So there will be a concrete
document to discuss by Stockholm.

> It would be good for someone to summarize where the topic is - there
> seems to be a very broad range of views as to the scope of the
> problem and what would be potential deliverables.

The potential deliverables in the form of 2-3 documents
are listed in the call for proposals.  Regarding the summary
of list discussions, sure, I will attempt one over the weekend.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:23:42 -0500

Just keep in mind that the focus of discussions in DISPATCH is on the
level of the scope of work, where it should be done and deliverables and
not necessarily the technical details. Understanding of course that some
consideration of technical details is required to figure out where the
work should be done. 

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:17 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

> That said, certainly if folks have an interest, then we can consider 

Mary: The interest is there, and I agree with James and Hadriel that we
should consider discussions in Stockholm.

Rajnish Jain, the primary editor of the session recording requirement
document, has the -00 version distributed among the co-authors and will
be updating the document with list discussions before submission
shortly.  So there will be a concrete document to discuss by Stockholm.

> seems to be a very broad range of views as to the scope of the problem

> and what would be potential deliverables.

The potential deliverables in the form of 2-3 documents are listed in
the call for proposals.  Regarding the summary of list discussions,
sure, I will attempt one over the weekend.

Thanks,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane,
Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:21:50 -0500

> resolved on the ML are identified. 

Mary, Gonzalo: This is a process-related question -- when we
form a WG as a result of deliberations in dispatch, is this
a formal WG that needs to be scheduled and managed as such?
Or does the dispatch-sponsored WG meet during an ad-hoc time,
or even chew up some time in the dispatch slot?

In other words, once dispatch agrees to create a WG, what
are the next steps that should be done?

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:29:07 -0500

The ADs go through the normal process to get a WG setup. These will be
regular WGs - i.e., own slots at meetings, chairs, etc. I refer to these
as "mini" WGs because they may only have one WG deliverable.  The CLF
work is in the plans as a regular WG.  Until the WG is setup, if you
need time at the meeting to discuss issues, then we can use some of the
DISPATCH WG allocated time.  

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:22 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Mary Barnes wrote:
> formed. We will only allocate agenda time if open issues that cannot 
> be resolved on the ML are identified.

Mary, Gonzalo: This is a process-related question -- when we form a WG
as a result of deliberations in dispatch, is this a formal WG that needs
to be scheduled and managed as such?
Or does the dispatch-sponsored WG meet during an ad-hoc time, or even
chew up some time in the dispatch slot?

In other words, once dispatch agrees to create a WG, what are the next
steps that should be done?

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:14:26 -0500

I just want to pull one thing out of here - not necessarily specific to
this topic or picking on James, but some general comments on the model
we're trying to achieve.  Yes, there has been lots of discussion on this
topic, but that's actually a concern with docs that come in late. The
attention span in RAI tends to be very short - a good example being
Identity that was such a hot topic over the past year - we burned a lot
of f2f meeting time on that topic over the past year (at least).   The
idea of the early deadlines was so that we could limit the topics that
folks would need to pay attention to.  I am actually concerned that
there hasn't been more discussion for some of the other topics - e.g.,
3rd party auth - that doc was one of the earliest to be posted for
discussion, yet we haven't had any discussion since May 27th.        

The whole idea of the model we're trying to achieve is that we want to
avoid the f2f meetings being entirely on the initial discussions of
shiny new topics (in particular -00 documents submitted at the
deadlines), but rather be having the f2f discussions at the point where
the problems have been adequately discussed such that the problem
statement and scope is quite clear and achievable deliverables have been
defined. 

Thanks,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:06 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

At 06:39 PM 6/17/2009, Mary Barnes wrote:
>and has not yet been considered in the IETF-75 plans.  However, if 
>there is enough interest in the topic and folks committed to the work, 
>then we may be able to allocate agenda time.

Of the last 75 messages to this list, more than half have been on this
topic alone.

I do agree this topic was late, but that ought to be stated as the only
reason this topic doesn't progress at IETF75. Evidence of the vast
debate we've had on this list proves folks are embracing this idea -
even if they do not exactly have an idea of how it will look when
finished - which is actually what we want in a WG, right?

James

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:16:19 -0700

> are the next steps that should be done?

It's the standard IETF process. Typical flow for things coming from  
DISPATCH would be submit a charter to ADs. ADs will put it on IESG  
agenda for approval to go out to IETF. When this is approved it will  
be sent out for IETF Last Call and comments collect. Then it goes back  
on IESG agenda for approval as a working group. From that point on it  
is run as a normal WG and get time allocated at IETF meetings.

Cullen

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:26:58 -0400

Does this mean that "dispatch" is effectively a continuous BoF?

Or does it mean that AFTER you get the dispatch "seal of approval", THEN 
you have a BoF?

Janet

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:53:20 -0500

I wouldn't look at it that way.  For example, for CLF, there was not a
BoF and a new WG is planned -  i.e., you don't have to have a BoF to
start a new WG and I would think that would be more the rule than the
exception. Out of the 7 items that were put on the table by June 8th,
only one BoF is planned.  So, dispatch is more of a continous discussion
of new ideas and farming out the work to other WGs, a BoF, a new WG or
as individual/AD sponsored work.  That all said, some of the topic
discussions  in the DISPATCH WG f2f meetings might look like "mini" BoFs
- for example the cc-uui topic. 
 
Regards,
Mary. 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Janet P Gunn
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:27 PM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF-75 plans for DISPATCH

Janet

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:58:17 -0700

On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:26 , Janet P Gunn wrote:

> Or does it mean that AFTER you get the dispatch "seal of approval",  
> THEN you have a BoF?
>

Closer to the first than the second. We certainly don't want to add an  
extra step to make it even take longer to form new WGs. The general  
plan is for things that get consensus or form a WG in DISPATCH, to go  
directly to IESG approval step without a BOF.