Subject: [dispatch] WG: IETF-76 DISPATCH WG deadlines

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:30:21 +0200

Dear all,
here is a proposal for the Charter. I missed to sent it to the whole
list. I'm sorry for that.
So here for discussion:
 
The use of the Reason header field in responses is considered in
RFC3326, doing so is not specified for any existing response code. 
Nevertheless for interoperability reason between SIP and PSTN such
behaviour is needed and already deployed within many networks.
A guideline to permit the use of the Reason header within Response is
needed.
 
Milestone:
May 2010 Guideline for Reason in Responses  to ISEG
 
Best Regards
 
Roland

________________________________

Von: Jesske, Roland 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. September 2009 14:22
An: 'Mary Barnes'; 'Gonzalo Camarillo'
Betreff: AW: [dispatch] IETF-76 DISPATCH WG deadlines

Hi Mary and Gonzalo,
with regard to the mail of this morning I saw that you have already
mentioned the reason issue.
Looking on this mail it seems to me that I have to write something for
the Charter.
So I try my best:
 
The use of the Reason header field in responses is considered in
RFC3326, doing so is not specified for any existing response code. 
Nevertheless for interoperability reason between SIP and PSTN such
behaviour is needed and already deployed within many networks.
A guideline to permit the use of the Reason header within Response is
needed.
 
Milestone:
May 2010 Guideline for Reason in Responses  to ISEG
 
Is the milestone correct or do I have to differentiate?
 
I hope everything is correct. Commons?
 
Thank you and Best Regards
 
Roland

________________________________

Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im
Auftrag von Mary Barnes
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. August 2009 18:25
An: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Betreff: [dispatch] IETF-76 DISPATCH WG deadlines

Hi all, 

As was done for IETF-75, we are setting earlier deadlines for discussing
topics in DISPATCH prior to the WG session at IETF-76.  

We will again follow the deadlines for BoFs: 
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76
<http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76>  

This provides enough time to dispatch topics prior to the meeting as
appropriate - e.g., mini-bofs, official bofs, other WGs, new WGs,
mailing lists, etc. Thus, allowing us to have more focused and
constructive discussions on a smaller set of topics prior to the WG
session. 

Please note that the dates are much sooner than you might expect as the
time between IETF-75 and IETF-76 is 3 weeks less than the time between
IETF-74 and IETF-75. The document deadlines are 9 and 10 weeks away from
next Monday (August 24th).  

Thus, the following are the proposed deadlines: 

Sept 7th  - Cutoff date to notify the chairs and DISPATCH WG mailing
list of plans to submit a 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 it.

September 21st - 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.

September 28th - Topics that are to be the focus of IETF-76 are
announced. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- 

The idea here is to focus the discussion over the weeks preceding
IETF-76 on these main topics, noting that any new or updates to any
documents are due 3-4 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-76. 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.

As discussed previously, 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 so that the authors can gather other interested
parties to contribute to the work. 

Regards, 
Mary and Gonzalo 
DISPATCH WG co-chairs