Subject: [Speermint] Proposal to shut down the working group

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:27:40 -0600

All,

It has been a long journey, but we believe the Speermint working group is
reaching its ending.  Due to the lack of interest on the mailing list, and
the perpetual existence of several drafts, we are suggesting to shut down
the working group.  If we do this, there are a few working group items still
outstanding.  The question we have for the working group is, which working
group items do we work to close out and which ones do we abandon (or move
back to dispatch for further evaluation of value)?  Here are the currently
open working group items (does not includes drafts already submitted to the
IESG):

- SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-10)

- SPEERMINT Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-02)

The following draft was proposed in SPEERMINT, and the working group
accepted it as a working group item.  However, the authors have never
submitted it as an official SPEERMINT item.  Suggest submitting this to
dispatch in lieu of the Speermint working group, assuming we shut it down.

- SIP Interconnect Guidelines
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-03)

Your feedback on shutting down the working group and the destination for the
previously mentioned drafts is greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Speermint Chairs

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 20:25:31 -0400

+1 on shut down ..though if ENUM and the former IPTEL are any example it
will take the IESG another 3 years to figure out how to close it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Daryl Malas
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Speermint] Proposal to shut down the working group

All,

Regards,

Speermint Chairs

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

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:54:58 +0200

I agree. You could argue that the LUF/LRF split (RFC 5486) is the only value-add from the group over the years, and even the details of that have been questioned in DRINKS.

John

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Daryl Malas
> Sent: 21 May 2010 23:28
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Adam Uzelac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:27:51 -0400

I have to reluctantly agree with this proposal, due almost exclusively to
the lack of engagement, but also a general over-taxing of the resources
across too many other WGs.  My reluctance stems from the knowledge that
there's more than enough evidence showing that "SIP Peering" is growing
quickly and steadily.  The interconnection between SSPs are nearly all
manual and bi-directional in nature.  As most know there's work to move this
process into the "automated" realm via drinks and martini. Maybe the
downfall of the speermint working group is the lack of a perceived "adult
beverage" content in the WG's name?!?  Regardless - I maintain that the
current work items in drinks/martini are simply stop-gap measures to a world
of SIP-based inherent reachability.

In my humble opinion, as an early postmortem to this working group:

   - Not enough emphasis on the "transit" call model
   - ENUM-based routing is not enough in and of itself
   - Way too  many Registries to contend with
   - Too much information in the Registries (therefore must be private)
   - Lack of a globally applicable public identity to SSP serving said
   identity
   - No consideration for a new "EGP for SIP" routing mechanism.

Adam Uzelac
Global Crossing
Director, Converged Network Architecture and Engineering

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Elwell, John <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree. You could argue that the LUF/LRF split (RFC 5486) is the only
> value-add from the group over the years, and even the details of that have
> been questioned in DRINKS.
>
> John
>

---

From: "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:54:05 -0500

Agree.  Wrap it up.  Declare victory and move on.

In today's market if you linger too long on something, it is soon
Overcome By Events (OBE).

Mike

> open working group items (does not includes drafts already submitted
to
> the
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-03
)
> 
> Your feedback on shutting down the working group and the destination
for
> the

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 12:56:09 -0400

+1 on shut down

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

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

All,

It has been a long journey, but we believe the Speermint working group
is
reaching its ending.  Due to the lack of interest on the mailing list,
and
the perpetual existence of several drafts, we are suggesting to shut
down
the working group.  If we do this, there are a few working group items
still
outstanding.  The question we have for the working group is, which
working
group items do we work to close out and which ones do we abandon (or
move
back to dispatch for further evaluation of value)?  Here are the
currently
open working group items (does not includes drafts already submitted to
the
IESG):

The following draft was proposed in SPEERMINT, and the working group
accepted it as a working group item.  However, the authors have never
submitted it as an official SPEERMINT item.  Suggest submitting this to
dispatch in lieu of the Speermint working group, assuming we shut it
down.

Your feedback on shutting down the working group and the destination for
the
previously mentioned drafts is greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Speermint Chairs

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:28:03 -0600

All,

I appreciate the feedback so far on the working group conclusion, but I have
not seen any feedback on the drafts listed in my original email.  Your
feedback on those demise of these drafts is appreciated.

Regards,

Daryl

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:33:59 -0400

If the authors are motivated to progress them, then bring them in
elsewhere. Otherwise, to put not to fine a point on it, we simply
abandon them.

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Daryl Malas
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Speermint] Proposal to shut down the working group

All,

I appreciate the feedback so far on the working group conclusion, but I
have
not seen any feedback on the drafts listed in my original email.  Your
feedback on those demise of these drafts is appreciated.

Regards,

Daryl

to
for

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 21:47:34 +0200

Daryl,

Given the time it has taken to get these 2 drafts to their present form, and given that they both require significant further work, which, by our existing track record, might take another year or two, I would say abandon them.

John

> Sent: 24 May 2010 20:28

---

From: "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:50:40 -0500

For the 2 WG drafts, it seemed they were near final last call, so could
those be published?
(Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.)

As for the Hancock draft, might be good to move to dispatch to see where
it goes.

Mike

to
for

---

From: "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:57:32 -0500

Without at least an architecture, does that mean the other SPEERMINT
RFCs get pushed to historical status?

Mike

> Behalf Of Elwell, John
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:48 PM
> To: Daryl Malas; [email-masked]
> Given the time it has taken to get these 2 drafts to their present
form,
> and given that they both require significant further work, which, by
our
> existing track record, might take another year or two, I would say
abandon
> them.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:57:44 -0400

No ..the terminology draft has clearly been useful and will continue to be
so. The issues in cross domain voice interconnection are not going away only
that the existing SPEERMINT charter is not constructed in such a way to
actually solve them and its obvious that other SDO's may have derived
solutions to the problem statement defined by SPEERMINT. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammer (hmmr)
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:58 PM
To: Elwell, John; Daryl Malas; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Speermint] Proposal to shut down the working group

Mike

form,
our
abandon

---

From: Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:13:43 -0400

> Agree.  Wrap it up.  Declare victory and move on.

I'm all for that.  When we started there were virtually no calls going E2E
over SIP between SPs.  Now that's in the billions of calls, which is great
to see, and in the process it is saving SPs significant costs.  :-)

Jason

---

From: Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:16:24 -0400

> As for the Hancock draft, might be good to move to dispatch to see where

I think you could argue to send them all into dispatch and, if there is
interest, progress them from there.  I suspect in our future that the
threats I-D will definitely be of interest.

Jason