Subject: RE: [Sipping] RE: Status of draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:44:11 -0500

Gunnar and all:
 
The editor is saying that the draft is complete. You are saying that the
draft has been sent as in interim to take care of comments. Why is this
contradiction? Does the editor is working in good faith? When I raised the
question you told that it is good to send the to show some "progress." So,
you also agreed that this is an "interim" draft.
 
With respect to WGLC, I did not provide my comments officially in the IETF
list as this draft was sent without my approval white it has been sent to
take care of WGLCs. So, I waited to work with the group to provided my
comments. The editor did NOT sent the draft while I was requesting almost
for the last 3 months. To our surprise, the editor sent the draft to all of
us only couple of days ago. I raised the objections, and then I provided my
comments. The editor failed to act accordingly.
 
The day before yesterday, the editor wanted to know couple of things when I
sent my comments in the IETF mailing list such as what it is the difference
QoS support over the LAN and the IP network for ToIP. I explained to him to
clarifying his mis-conceptions (I have copies of emails). I told him that we
need to clarify this for ToIP for implementations. Same is the case for all
other comments.
 
You point about WGLCs is interesting. Why do you also think that these are
also our obligations to clarify those? For example, a simple point about QoS
that Arnoud wanted to know show how the draft is INCOMPLETE even to take of
the QoS over the LAN for ToIP.
 
This draft's scope is the "Implementation Requirements Framework of ToIP."
It dealing with the networking environments as follows: 
 
a. Real-Time Text only users (p2p, mpt), b. Combination of Real-Time Text
and Audio users only (p2p, mpt), and c. Combination of Real-Time Text +
Video + Non-Real-Time Data/Applications users and Audio + Video +
Non-Real-Time Data/Applications users (p2p, mpt).
 
Therefore, your comments that the draft does not need to deal with p2p, mpt,
or mobility are technically INCONSISTENT so far the scope and objectives of
the draft are concerned.
 
The draft has mentioned those networking environments, but have NOT stated
the "implementation requirements" of ToIP for those environments. That is
why, I have raised those issues. If the draft does NOT deal with those
issues, the draft will remain technically INCONSISTENT.
 
You have raised an interesting issue related WGLCs. My comments are also NOW
officially a part of WGLCs.
 
So, we all need to deal with those comments as well.
 
Best regards,
Radhika

  _____  

From: Gunnar Hellstrom [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 2:14 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R.; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] RE: Status of draft-ietf-sipping-toip-04.txt

Radhika and all, 
The main WGLC comment was that it was unclear if the draft intended to point

at required protocol additions or state user requirements. 

We have made an effort to clear that issue. We are just pointing at how to 
use existing mechanisms to include real time text in the general SIP 
environment, and how to solve the specific interoperability issues with real

time text in other networks. We also have separated user requirements from 
solutions. The draft is a profiling document, isolating a set of user 
requirements and pointing at mechanisms to use for solving them in a 
harmonized way, so that interoperability is maximised. 

We have not been requested to mention p2p or mobility, and we do not need to

do it in this draft. From now on I expect all sipping authors to bring in 
real-time text in the media examples in their drafts. Once you are in the 
SIP environment, real-time text is just one medium among others. 

We made extensive rewording, so I just think that the draft needs a thorough

review to check if we covered the WGLC comments properly. 

We will surely touch the text medium again in other drafts, but let us get 
this finalized without bringing in new topics that can be covered better in 
joint SIP-related specifications. 

Gunnar 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- 
Gunnar Hellström, Omnitor 

--- 

Arnoud: 

You have touched couple of good points, but still it falls short off what I 
have been saying all along. Few points are as follows: 

1. 

        I am NOT talking about future drafts at all. I clearly know what I 
have to do in the future drafts as I started this one in the beginning both 
as editor and co-author. I would not wait for anyone to do those if I have 
time. 
2. 

        We  agreed that the draft you have sent is INCOMPLETE and it was 
sent, as Gunnar explained, it is a work-in-progress. 
3. 

        What I am saying to complete the work-in-progress part. That is all 
about. It is nothing to do with Rome that was not in a day. It is common 
technical sense that the draft has to live with its implementation 
requirements. As it was hurriedly sent all on a sudden to show as 
work-in-progress, the remaining technical issues need to be completed, and 
it is the framework of the implementation requirements for which the draft 
has set the stage (a. p2p, b. mpt, c. toip only media, d. multiple media 
along with toip, d. ip only, e. ip + LANs, f. ip + pstn, g. ip + pstn + 
cellular, f. mobility [user + terminal]) . 
4. 

        Are you saying the draft is COMPLETE as it stands NOW? 

Best regards, 
Radhika 

  _____ 

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: "Frank Shearar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:39:30 +0200

> Gunnar and all:
<snip>

> need to clarify this for ToIP for implementations. Same is the case for
all

Is this related to your QoS questions circa 2005/07/26?
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg08992.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg08991.html)
 Why should the ToIP draft talk about QoS over LAN, versus QoS over "the IP
network" (I presume you mean the Internet, since LANs are typically IP
networks). At the SIP level there's no difference between the two, and if
QoS for a particular medium is that important, then we should write a draft
_for_that_medium_: QoS for RFC4103, or whatever. I don't think this draft
should do more than it's already doing.

> issues, the draft will remain technically INCONSISTENT.

Do we need to add a section on how ToIP works with RFC 1149 networks too?

<snip>

> Radhika

Frank Shearar (also known as [email-masked])

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:54:51 -0500

I have a serious suggestion to end this silly discussion. Why don't you 
remove yourself as author and write the document you believe should be 
written? AFAIK this isn't really your area of expertise, but if you have 
some important ideas to contribute, don't hobble yourself with 
co-authors who have differing views.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:11:11 -0800

I have no idea what the right thing to do here is but I note that our fine
chairs could also slim down the list of editors on this document if they
thought that was the right thing. So if Dean feels like moping up some
spilled beer....

Seriously, if this draft (I underline draft) was published without some
authors permission, one way or another, we can clean that up as soon as the
black out period ends. If any individual, author or not, has strong opinions
about what is right or wrong with the document I'm sure the folk on the list
would be interested in constructive feedback about how to improve things. As
Tom points out, drafts are a great way to do this.

Cullen

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:19:17 +0000

Hi Tom, folks,
   As always, Tom has a sensible solution. I second the suggestion.
   If there are areas Radhika doesn't think have been covered, he is
   free to write his own draft covering them, with whomever he chooses.
   (That's what I do, and everyone else does - that's what drafts are  
for :).
   Please, no more - This train has left the station.
all the best,
   Lawrence

On 12 Mar 2006, at 20:54, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> I have a serious suggestion to end this silly discussion. Why don't  
> you remove yourself as author and write the document you believe  
> should be written? AFAIK this isn't really your area of expertise,  
> but if you have some important ideas to contribute, don't hobble  
> yourself with co-authors who have differing views.
>
> Roy, Radhika R. wrote:
...