Subject: [dispatch] Comments on cc-uui topic

From: Xavier Marjou <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:07:29 +0200

Hi all,

Reading the minutes of IETF75, I see that there is a proposal to form
a "mini-WG" for draft-johnston-dispatch-sip-cc-uui-00.txt.

My opinion is the following:
- draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui should progress as a standard track RFC.
- do not create a dedicated WG for this specific topic since I believe
the amount of work left to finalize the draft would not justify it.

Cheers,
Xavier

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:57:22 -0500

Hi Xavier,

Unfortunately, there are NO chartered items for RFCs in the DISPATCH WG
under the new model documented in RFC3427bis.  If a work item fits under
the charter of an existing WG or an update to the charter of an existing
WG is reasonable given the nature of the topic, then no new WG is
required. However, for items that do not fit within an existing WG, the
choices are to either progress as an individual AD sponsored document or
to establish a "mini-WG" to complete the work.  

The idea behind the "mini-WG"s is that the milestones/deliverables are
quite clear from the beginning and in many cases there would be just one
or two deliverables, with the milestones established to complete the
work fairly quickly.  If the milestones are not completed in a timely
manner, then a WG may be closed.  The advantage of this approach, versus
the past approach of pushing many standards track documents into SIP and
keeping many informational documents spanning a broad range of topics in
SIPPING, is that these mini-WGs are very focused, which is the true
intent of IETF working groups. With this model, there is far less
potential for documents to languish.  While it might seem this approach
adds additional overhead, the overhead in establishing a new WG is
fairly low and the burden of such is on the ADs ;)  This also allows the
ADs to pull additional folks into leadership positions since these
smaller WGs are far more manageable and far less demanding timewise.
This model also allows the ADs to spread the work amongst multiple WG
chairs versus two chairs shepherding 20+ WG documents.  

This whole approach is in response to the perceived and in some cases
actual inefficiencies in completing work items in a timely manner in the
old SIPPING and SIP WGs - there are many examples of items that have
taken 5+ years to be published.  This is a disservice to the community
and the folks that spent years working on the drafts as it has resulted
in RFCs that are no longer relevant to the industry.  

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Xavier Marjou
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 4:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] Comments on cc-uui topic

Hi all,

Reading the minutes of IETF75, I see that there is a proposal to form a
"mini-WG" for draft-johnston-dispatch-sip-cc-uui-00.txt.

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

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:31:26 +0300

Hi,

as we mentioned in Stockholm, in order to fully understand how good (or 
bad) the idea of mini WGs is, we need to run a few experiments to see 
how it works.

Cheers,

Gonzalo