Subject: [MMUSIC] Revised agenda for Prague meeting

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:39:29 +0000

Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (MMUSIC) Working Group
============================================================

CHAIRS:  Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
          Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
          Jean-Francois Mule <[email-masked]>

AGENDA

Monday, 19 March 2007 at 17:40-19:50 (Congress I)
-------------------------------------------------
17:40   Introduction and progress report                     (Chairs, 5)

17:45   ICE                                              (Rosenberg, 45)
         draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-14.txt

18:30   ICE-lite                                          (Rescorla, 10)
         draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-lite-00.txt

18:40   SDP Capability Negotiation                       (Andreasen, 30)
         draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation-05.txt

19:10   SDP Media Capability Negotiation                       (Even, 5)
         draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-media-capabilities-02.txt

19:15   Signaling media decoding dependency in SDP          (Schierl, 5)
         draft-schierl-mmusic-layered-codec-02.txt

19:20   Source-Specific Media Attributes in SDP              (Lennox, 5)
         draft-lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-attributes-00.txt

19:25   SDP Offer/Answer Mechanism to Enable File Transfer   (Garcia, 5)
         draft-ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech-00.txt

19:30   The 'MSR' Bandwidth modifier in SDP                (Desineni, 5)
         draft-hdesinen-mmusic-oa-send-bw-attr-02.txt

19:35   Media Description for IKE in SDP                      (Saito, 5)
         draft-saito-mmusic-sdp-ike-00.txt

19:40   SDP for Multiple Telephony Events per RTP packet     (Taylor, 5)
         draft-taylor-mmusic-multev-00

19:45   Configuring DiffServ for SDP established media         (Polk, 5)
         draft-polk-mmusic-dscp-attribute-01.txt

19:50   End

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:06:44 -0500

This agenda brings back memories (not good ones), of the "gong show" we 
used to have in sip when the agenda was 20 items each of 5 minutes. 
Really, there is nothing useful that can be done in a meeting in 5 
minutes. I'd suggest either cutting some of these, or if the goal is to 
just 'advertise' each draft to enncourage reading, the chairs can have a 
single deck for all of them and go through each summarizing them, a few 
minutes each.

My two cents.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:21:43 +0000

On 5 Mar 2007, at 20:06, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> This agenda brings back memories (not good ones), of the "gong  
> show" we used to have in sip when the agenda was 20 items each of 5  
> minutes. Really, there is nothing useful that can be done in a  
> meeting in 5 minutes. I'd suggest either cutting some of these, or  
> if the goal is to just 'advertise' each draft to enncourage  
> reading, the chairs can have a single deck for all of them and go  
> through each summarizing them, a few minutes each.

I was planning on asking the authors to produce a couple of slides on  
each draft, to address the key open issue, and assembling a single  
deck to reduce the change-over time. That should be enough to make  
some progress, provided the presenters and working group are prepared.

I'm also hoping ICE won't need its full 45 minutes slot this time,  
and we can get most comments on the list ahead of time.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:31:01 -0500

Colin Perkins wrote:

>> This agenda brings back memories (not good ones), of the "gong  show" 
>> we used to have in sip when the agenda was 20 items each of 5  
>> meeting in 5 minutes. I'd suggest either cutting some of these, or  if 
>> the goal is to just 'advertise' each draft to enncourage  reading, the 
>> chairs can have a single deck for all of them and go  through each 
>> summarizing them, a few minutes each.
> 
> 
> each draft, to address the key open issue, and assembling a single  deck 
> to reduce the change-over time. That should be enough to make  some 
> progress, provided the presenters and working group are prepared.

OK.

> 
> I'm also hoping ICE won't need its full 45 minutes slot this time,  and 
> we can get most comments on the list ahead of time.
> 

I hope so too. -14 had very little technical change from -13, though 
there were countless clarification/rewording changes suggested by the 
reviews. I won't cover those, just the technical changes. There are no 
open issues. So if folks are fine with it all, it could be as little as 
10m. Wouldn't that be nice. But past experience unfortunately says that 
things do sometimes come up....

-Jonathan R.

---

From: "Ingemar Johansson S \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:59:41 +0100

Hi

I second Jonathans observation, my take is that the last 5 or 6 speakers will not get any chance to speak. 

Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: den 5 mars 2007 21:07
> To: Colin Perkins
> Cc: Jörg Ott; Jean-Francois Mule; mmusic WG
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Revised agenda for Prague meeting
> 
> This agenda brings back memories (not good ones), of the 
> "gong show" we used to have in sip when the agenda was 20 
> items each of 5 minutes. 
> Really, there is nothing useful that can be done in a meeting 
> in 5 minutes. I'd suggest either cutting some of these, or if 
> the goal is to just 'advertise' each draft to enncourage 
> reading, the chairs can have a single deck for all of them 
> and go through each summarizing them, a few minutes each.
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> Colin Perkins wrote:
> 
> > 17:45   ICE                                              
> (Rosenberg, 45)

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:12:59 -0600

At 01:59 AM 3/6/2007, Ingemar Johansson S \(LU/EAB\) wrote:
>Hi
>
>I second Jonathans observation, my take is that 
>the last 5 or 6 speakers will not get any chance to speak.

With good discussions on the list - we could, in 
5 minutes, convey enough to ask for a hum of 
support by the WG, even ask if an effort is worth the WG taking on as an item.

All this has to start with discussion on the list 
- otherwise I agree that 5 minutes is hard to say much

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:52:37 -0500

I'll make the sacrifice. draft-taylor-mmusic-multev-00 is an attempt to fix a 
backward compatibility issue with RFC 4733 (the rewritten RFC 2833). RFC 4733 
allows senders to pack multiple event reports into one RTP packet. An RFC 2833 
receiver wouldn't be able to decipher the contents. The draft introduces an SDP 
attribute to signal the capability, so the two ends can agree on whether it 
should be used. We'll probably look to make this an AVT WG draft, but does 
anyone in MMUSIC see a problem with it?

James M. Polk wrote:
>> I second Jonathans observation, my take is that the last 5 or 6 
>> speakers will not get any chance to speak.
> 
> With good discussions on the list - we could, in 5 minutes, convey 
> enough to ask for a hum of support by the WG, even ask if an effort is 
> worth the WG taking on as an item.
> 
> All this has to start with discussion on the list - otherwise I agree 
> that 5 minutes is hard to say much
> 
> 
>> Ingemar
>>
...

>> > >         draft-taylor-mmusic-multev-00
...