Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Sipping] Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-03.txt]

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:27:08 -0500

Dean:
 
Definitely, it would be nice, however, I will not be in Dallas.
 
I would appreciate the comments to deal with the technical issues that I
have presented in the draft (some co-authors claimed it is COMPLETE). I
would then be able to participate in the "technical" discussions per
findings in the meeting with the rest of the IETF folks, if needed, who will
not be able to NOT participate in the Dallas meeting.
 
All I like to see that the draft needs to deal with all technical issues for
the ToIP Implementation requirements for which it has set the stage (as
opposed to just to publish an Informational RFC for the sake of
publication).
 
ToIP "Implementation" requirements are more serious "low-level" requirements
that those of the simple "high-level" framework of ToIP requirements (an RFC
has been published on the "high level" requirements).
 
By the way, ToIP is becoming a serious "real-time" application with all: a.
Users with difficulties, b. Mainstream users, c. Use in commercial
environments, and d. Use in military environments.
 
In fact, Gonzalo's comments set the stage for "serious" self soul searching
among ourselves. You can see how we tried our best to achieve these
objectives, but it did not happen that started all sort of emails back and
forth as a last resort. 
 
It is a great unfortunate thing that the draft was against the serious
objections of the co-authors, at least, that include myself. Has it ever
happened with any other drafts?
 
I appreciate your helping hand and time despite the busy schedule in Dallas,
and Gonzalo's deep insights for providing comments.
 
Best regards,
Radhika

  _____  

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Dean Willis
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 3:08 PM
To: sipping
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo
Subject: [Fwd: [Sipping] Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-03.txt]

I'd like to point out questions (reproduced below) raised last year by 
Gonzalo about the TOIP draft. 

While I'm sure the current draft addresses this to some extent, these do 
seem somewhat similar to more recent concerns rasied on this list, and 
the possibiliy that we (SIPPING) may be trying pull the cart in a couple 
of different directions at the same time. 

We and our chairs do need to do a bit more thinking about how to move 
towards a more complete consensus here.  I don't see an obvious path, 
but am open to suggestions. 

A couple of possibilities that come to mind: 

1) Get a focused review team together to hash it out. 
2) Talk about it in Dallas. 
3) See if we can rent a boxing ring in Dallas and do a "winner takes 
all" resolution. I predict a lot of action on side-bets, but I'm not 
sure we'll make much off the direct-to-video royalties. 

Give it some thought, and get back to us. 

Thanks, 

-- 
Dean 

-------- Original Message -------- 
Subject: [Sipping] Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-toip-03.txt 
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:33:23 +0200 
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]> 
To: Arnoud van Wijk <[email-masked]>,        Gunnar Hellstrom 
<[email-masked]>,        sipping <[email-masked]> 
CC: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>, Dean Willis <[email-masked]> 

Hi, 

the WGLC on this draft has just finished. The authors have received a 
set of comments that will need to be taken into account. 

However, I would like to discuss the scope and the purpose of this draft 
before going ahead with it. By reading the title of the draft, it seems 
like a requirements document. However, the draft seems to define a 
framework: not a framework of requirements, but a framework to implement 
ToIP services. In that sense, the draft seems like the definition of a 
service (the same way as the conferencing framework defines the 
conference service). Additionally, the draft also contains requirements 
on the graphical user interface of the user agents implementing the 
service, and system requirements (e.g., minimum storage capatity of some 
of the nodes used to implement the service). 

My question is, what is the purpose of this draft? 

Does it aim to define requirements so that the SIPish WGs develop 
protocol extensions needed for the service, does it aim to define a 
service framework using existing protocols and extensions, or does it 
aim to do something else? 

We need to clarify what we are trying to do here... 

Thanks, 

Gonzalo 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP