Subject: [Speermint] [wg-business] Montreal Meeting & Other Next Steps, Incl. Agenda for IETF 66

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 11:25:04 -0400

WG Update

As we look ahead to Montreal, Dave and I wanted to share with the WG
what our current objectives look like and what the draft agenda for
Montreal is.

*Please send us your feedback and suggest additional agenda items as
appropriate.*

For reference, see the WG charter at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/speermint-charter.html

Proposed WG agenda for Montreal:

0 - Agenda Bashing

1 - Terminology I-D review.

2 - Requirements I-D review. (+ Possible selected Use Case I-D reviews.)

3 - Architecture I-D review.

4 - Review Next Steps

>From Goals & Milestones: (My additional comments preceded by "JL-->".)
------------------------

1 - Jul 2006 Submit SPEERMINT terminology I-D

JL --> This draft is still in-process. We expect to present a reasonably
stable draft in Montreal and move to WGLC shortly afterwards.

*Please review this document again and submit your comments.*  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-00.
txt

2 - Sep 2006 Submit I-D defining the SPEERMINT routing architecture

JL --> Plan TBD.  (We expect to discuss our approach with key
contributors in Montreal.)

3 - Dec 2006 Submit I-D defining the message flows associated with the
SPEERMINT routing architecture

JL --> Plan TBD. It is likely that this document will mature out of one
or more of the use case I-Ds we hope to solicit (*see 2nd comment in #5
below*).

4 - Jan 2007 Submit I-D on the use of DNS SRV and NAPTR records as
specified by RFC 3263

JL --> Plan TBD. Same parenthetical note as in #3 above.

5 - Mar 2007 Submit I-D on the minimum set of requirements for SIP-based
VoIP interconnection

JL --> This document will be of major importance to the WG.
Jean-Francois Mule will be editing this WG document for us and leading
the effort.  We hope to see a basic -00 draft for Montreal, perhaps at
least carrying over the requirements that were split out of Dave's
earlier Requirements & Terminology draft.

JL --> Also *VERY* important to filling out the requirements draft (and
the architecture draft for that matter) are use cases.  The goal is to
solicit use case I-Ds.  These should be informational, as personal I-Ds
for the WG from people from different geographies, and with different
technologies.  Those use cases will need to comply with the high-level
requirements of course. However, in order to fully document all
requirements, these application-specific or industry-specific use cases
will be needed. We expect these will necessarily be concerned with and
constrained to a specific industry, market geography, or deployment
technology, so that they need not be all-encompassing or overly complex.
We would expect some of these uses cases to indicate a need for
additions to the requirements draft (based on WG consensus). And these
use cases will also share a large set of common requirements which we
can confirm as especially high priority, for example. 

*Please email Dave and I if you may be interested in submitting use
cases.*

Thanks!!

Dave & Jason

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint