Subject: [Sip] RE: Proposed Change to Security adhoc timing

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:40:43 -0600

Dean,
 
2030 on Tuesday for Security looks good.  I wonder if it wouldn't be
reasonable to run back-to-back adhocs on Tuesday evening and cover off the
3G then OR was the idea to have the 3G adhoc after the main WG discussions
on this topic? In that case, 2200 on Thursday would be fine. 
 
Is there a detailed agenda for the security adhoc available or being
proposed?  In London, the security adhoc was not extremely productive as the
discussion was quite broad and open-ended (although, perhaps that's the
nature of this topic).  
 
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:30 PM
To: Dean Willis; Jari Arkko; Barnes, Mary [NGC:B601:EXCH]; sip
Subject: Proposed Change to Security adhoc timing

Even better, how about Tuesday at 2030 for Security? The last scheduled
meeting of the day runs until 1800, so 2.5 hours should let us eat then
meet. . . .
 
--
Dean

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dean Willis <mailto:[email-masked]>  
To: Jari  <mailto:[email-masked]> Arkko ; Mary Barnes
<mailto:[email-masked]>  ; [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft Agenda SIP WG at IETF 52

How would people feel about 2130 Tuesday for SIP Security AD-Hoc?
 
I've also received a request for a 3G-related adhoc. Schedule ideas?
Thursday 2200?
 
--
Dean

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jari  <mailto:[email-masked]> Arkko 
To: Mary Barnes <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; 'Dean Willis'
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft Agenda SIP WG at IETF 52

I just wanted to comment as someone who indeed comes from the east ;-) that
I'm quite fine with either Monday 21 or Tuesday after the regular sessions
end.
If we need to collide with some other sessions then I think Monday last
session
(what you have now proposed) is propably the best choice...
 
Jari

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mary Barnes <mailto:[email-masked]>  
To: 'Dean Willis' <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; sip
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2001 19:36
Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft Agenda SIP WG at IETF 52

Dean, 

Is the start time for the Security adhoc correct (2100)? It appears from the
main agenda that the regular evening WG sessions don't complete until 2200.
This would be a problem for those of us that also are participating in
MIDCOM.  Although, I do recognize that a 2200 start time on the first day
for folks that have traveled from the East will be grueling.  Is it possible
to move this adhoc to Tuesday evening?

Regards, 
Mary H. Barnes 
[email-masked] 
972-684-5432 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dean Willis [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:59 PM 
To: sip 
Subject: [Sip] Draft Agenda SIP WG at IETF 52 

I've posted the first draft agenda along with other planning stuff at: 

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/meets/ietf52/
<http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/meets/ietf52/>  

Please comment ASAP. I will need to  lock this down during the evening of 
Dec4, GMT-6. 

Note that the only proposed ad-hoc so far is Security, currently proposed 
for Monday night at 2100. 

-- 
Dean 

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

---

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:57:36 +0200

RE: [Sip] Draft Agenda SIP WG at IETF 52>Is there a detailed agenda for the security adhoc available or being proposed?  In London,
the
>security adhoc was not extremely productive as the discussion was quite broad and open-ended
>(although, perhaps that's the nature of this topic).

I don't think it is the nature of the topic. We need an agenda to focus the
discussion, and propably also some additional work before the meeting
to analyze where we stand on requirements, frameworks, and how the
proposed pieces fit or don't fit together. It would be really good also
if we could somehow agree on how we see SIP security developing
in the future. (As an example, I think we need more emphasis on e2m and
e2e because sooner or later various folks building systems are going to
realize they didn't want to trust their proxies after all; yet even the h2h
SIP security is useful and we shouldn't delay the Bis RFC for instance
even if we see that we will have to develop some additional security
stuff in the future.)

I sent some proposed items for the agenda to Dean. I think he put
the list to the web site, but further input is certainly needed.

Jari