Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Thoughts on the Principle of Dividing andConquering

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:39:34 -0500

Dean,

I sympathize with the plight of the WG chairs and support the search for
a solution.  What I was trying to suggest is that we not get tunnel
vision and think that these changes will only affect those inside the
WGs.  Because many other standards groups are interacting with the IETF
wrt SIP, the external communications is also a consideration that should
be taken into account.  I didn't want to lose sight of that.

So, I guess this means that the external communications will be a key
responsibility of the new RAI AD's then.  Could someone describe how
this will work inter-WG, inter-Area, inter-standards groups?

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:12 PM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer)
> Cc: Avshalom Houri; Cullen Jennings (fluffy); [email-masked]; 
> Sipping List; Jon Peterson; Allison Mankin
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] Re: [Sip] Thoughts on the Principle of 
> Dividing andConquering
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Michael Hammer ((mhammer)) wrote:
> 
> >
> > If this is really just an administrative issue.  Could not 
> the WG just 
> > have extra multiple secretaries to help manage each sub- 
> category of 
> > drafts?
> >
> 
> Of course, a couple of uber-chairs with a bunch of 
> under-chairs is in  
> IETF speak called an "area", which has "area directors" for 
> oversight  
> and "working groups chairs" and "working groups" for each sub- 
> category of draft.
> 
> 
> The main challenge is cleanly defined sub-categories, which is a  
> large part of what I'm trying to figure out here.
> 
> --
> Dean
> 

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

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:55:39 -0600

> be taken into account.  I didn't want to lose sight of that.

That's a good point, Mike. Thanks for clarifying. Lateral  
communication is always critical.

I was thinking that the primary conduit "in" from external SDO's  
would be the SIPREQ function, which would analyze the requirements  
and either kick them to the SIPUSE, SIPEM, or SIPNEW functions as  
appropriate.

Things that are effectively just bug reports could probably go  
directly into SIPEM, which would of course be free to kick stuff back  
to SIPREQ, over to SIPUSE, or out to SIPNEW if they found it wasn't  
really a maintenance-level request.

Other SIP-usage working groups inside IETF could probably operate in  
a similar fashion.

Output communication would perhaps be a larger challenge, with the  
key part being effectively communicating exactly where a change- 
request is "living" at any given time. This sounds like it be could  
be handled by our usual liaison mechanisms, but there might be an  
opportunity to augment this with a "tracker" tool.

--
Dean