Subject: [Ecrit] Maastricht Agenda - 1st draft

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:48:28 -0400

Below is the first draft at the agenda for Maastricht.  Final agenda is due
on Monday.

It's time to bash,

Marc, Richard, Roger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 min * Agenda Bashing, Draft Status Update, Charter tweaks (Marc Linsner,
Richard Barnes, Roger Marshall)

20 min * PhoneBCP & Framework (Brian Rosen/James Polk)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-15
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-11
Intention: Discussion about the latest changes - There have been changes due
to IESG review, more changes required due to Location-Conveyance rework.

10 min. * Rough Location (Richard Barnes)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-ecrit-rough-loc-03
Intention: Update on changes required to match Location Conveyance.

10 min. * 10 min. * Additional Data (Brian Rosen)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data-00
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

10 min. * Data Only (Brian Rosen/Hannes Tschofenig)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea-01
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

10 min. * Unauthenticated Access (Stephen McCann)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-08
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

10 min. * PSAP Callback (Henning Schulzrinne)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback-03
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

10 min. * Trustworthy Location (Hannes Tschofenig/Bernard Aboba)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location-03
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

10 min. * Civic Boundary  (Martin Thomson)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-ecrit-civic-boundary-00
Intention: Review applicability to ECRIT.

10 min. * Open Discussion

---

From: "Dawes, Peter, VF-Group" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:19:06 +0200

Hi Marc,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-11 needs a few
editorial corrections. 

Regards,
Peter

[Page 2]/1. Terminology/"Nomadic device (user):  A nomadic user agent is
connected to the
      network temporarily, for relatively short durations, but does not
      move significantly during the during the emergency call.  Examples
      include a laptop using an IEEE 802.11 hotspot or a desk IP phone
      that is moved occasionally from one cubicle to another."

"during the" is repeated.

[Page 19]/6.4.  Location and references to location

"When location is transmitted by value, the location information is
   available to entity in the call path."

"entity" should be "entities"

[Page 20]/6.5 End system location configuration

"Normally, mobile devices will
   acquire its location at call time for use in an emergency call
   routing.  See Section 6.8 for a further discussion on location
   updates for dispatch location."

"mobile devices" should be "a mobile device"

[page 29]/11.  Mid-call behavior

"Therefore a PSAP may need to a REFER request [RFC3515] a call to a
   bridge for conferencing."

should say "Therefore a PSAP may need to send a REFER request [RFC3515]
to redirect a call to a
   bridge for conferencing."

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Marc Linsner
Sent: 14 July 2010 13:48
To: ecrit
Subject: [Ecrit] Maastricht Agenda - 1st draft

Below is the first draft at the agenda for Maastricht.  Final agenda is
due on Monday.

It's time to bash,

Marc, Richard, Roger

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
20 min * Agenda Bashing, Draft Status Update, Charter tweaks (Marc
Linsner, Richard Barnes, Roger Marshall)

20 min * PhoneBCP & Framework (Brian Rosen/James Polk)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-15
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-11
Intention: Discussion about the latest changes - There have been changes
due to IESG review, more changes required due to Location-Conveyance
rework.

10 min. * Unauthenticated Access (Stephen McCann)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-acces
s-08
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

10 min. * Trustworthy Location (Hannes Tschofenig/Bernard Aboba)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location-0
3
Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.

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

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:42:12 -0400

Thanks for this, I'll fix it for next rev.  I assume we'll need another, and if some miracle happens and we don't, the RFC Editor can make them.

Brian

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:34:56 -0700

This looks like a sipping style gong show. I don't know how you are going to get anything productive done in all the 10 minute slots. Sorry I don't have any useful suggestion on how to improve the agenda but seems like the chairs/ADs could prioritize this somehow or other. 

> Below is the first draft at the agenda for Maastricht.  Final agenda is due

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:41:25 -0700

Opinions differ as to why The Gong Show was cancelled, but we do know that
it was replaced by a variety show providing more finished (and less
controversial) fare with a larger amount of time allocated to each segment.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gong_Show  for details. 

On a similar theory, it might make sense to focus the meeting time on WG
work items and material that is closest to adoption as a WG work item.
This would allow each item to be given more time. 

A Virtual Interim can then be scheduled which focuses on potential new
items, enabling more in-depth discussion of each item. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Cullen Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:35 PM
To: Marc Linsner
Cc: ecrit
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Maastricht Agenda - 1st draft

This looks like a sipping style gong show. I don't know how you are going to
get anything productive done in all the 10 minute slots. Sorry I don't have
any useful suggestion on how to improve the agenda but seems like the
chairs/ADs could prioritize this somehow or other. 

On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:48 , Marc Linsner wrote:

> Below is the first draft at the agenda for Maastricht.  Final agenda 
> is due on Monday.
> 
> It's time to bash,
> 
> Marc, Richard, Roger
> 
> Intention: Discussion about the latest changes - There have been 
> changes due to IESG review, more changes required due to
Location-Conveyance rework.

Cullen Jennings

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:10:04 -0400

Cullen, Bernard,

The WG items are top of the list, down to and including rough-loc.  The next
5 items are individual drafts that have been discussed by the group before.
The chairs and ADs have determined these 5 drafts fit within the current
charter, have community support, and want to refresh the community and
verify they are ready to adopt them as WG items.  These 5 items are in order
of a priority the chairs determined is an expectation of the community.  The
last item is an individual draft that the author asked to present to the
community (and was denied time at the last meeting).

Why not more time on WG items?

The WG items that are in need of work are (all other wg items are either
RFC'ed or in RFC Editor queue):

1) draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync
2) draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary
3) draft-ietf-ecrit-rough-loc
4) draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp
5) draft-ietf-ecrit-framework

#1 & #2 are in review by the apps area/XML Directorate, not much ECRIT can
do until this is complete.

#3  The editors/authors have 'revitalized' their work on this, there are
some wglc comments they are addressing, 10 min. to present the status of
that work.

#4 & #5 have been under IESG/AD review for a while and have a few comments
from that to discuss, but these drafts have a potentially larger impact by
the yet-to-be-determined work on the sipcore location-conveyance draft.
Since sipcore is still discussing this draft and has yet to complete what
location-conveyance looks like, it was felt that spending more time guessing
what sipcore was going to do isn't real useful.

If you still think agenda changes are needed, please make suggestions.

Now, since we have the WG draft status here, I'm sure we'll save some of the
time reserved for the chairs status update.  :^)

Thanks,

-Marc-

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:15:34 -0700

So what I get out this email is basically no time is needed for WG items. I find that surprising but will take it face value.

On the non WG items I don't think you can have any useful discussion in 10 minutes. If the purpose is to send 10 minutes advertising the draft to the WG with no discussion, then I think that is an awful agenda. My suggestions would be to prioritize these (perhaps they already are) then allocate a reasonable time to have whatever discussion is needed about each. If no discussion is needed then cancel the meeting and let some other WG use it. No doubt this will mean not all of them get discussion time but I would rather have useful convulsions about a few drafts and zero conclusions about a bunch of drafts. 

I'm not complaining about which drafts are on the agenda or how the chairs prioritized them - I'm expressing doubt that any meaningful discussion can happen in a 10 minute slot on most of these topics. 

Cullen Jennings