Subject: [splices] Way forward for the WG

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:47:28 +0300

Hi,

in the SPLICES session in Prague, there was consensus in the room not to
work on scenarios that require updated UAs on both ends. That is, the
new SPLICES functionality would need to be available as long as one end
supported the new mechanisms. Such consensus needs to be confirmed on
the list. Simon Pietro will take care of that.

It is obvious that this WG is running very low on energy. The little
energy I have seen came from people interested in scenarios where both
ends supported the new mechanisms to be developed. People against
updating both ends have been mostly opposing work on those mechanisms,
as opposed to driving new work.

So, I am concerned that when this decision is confirmed, there will not
be any energy left in this WG.

At this point, I would like to ask whether people are willing to
allocate some of their cycles to work on the problems described in the
charter of this WG or if I should simply shut down the WG for lack of
energy.

In short, I want SPLICES to be either an active WG or not to be a WG at
all. I do not want it to be in a kind of limbo where nothing happens and
nobody cares.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:10:06 +0800

Hi Gonzalo,

We(ZTE) care about this topic. Because of having no time for the meeting 
in Prague, I did not join the face to face meeting. I can join the 
discussion on the maillist, and ask other ZTE guys for the face to face 
meeting for the next time.

Then, back to the charter itself, I think this topic is quite meaningful. 
And there's some operators contact us to talk about the requirement of 
sharing streams between UEs in IMS. 

Last one, I think this topis is overlapped with IUT topic in 3GPP. How to 
handle the relationship of the two topics in IMS deployment is 
interesting.

Thanks,

Gao

Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2011-04-12 20:47

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送

主题
[splices] Way forward for the WG

Hi,

Thanks,

Gonzalo

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

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:24:42 -0400

Gonzalo,

I am *interested* in this work. (I was working on something similar when 
I first got involved with sip 10 years ago.)

And while I have been opposed to new mechanisms for coordination between 
the two ends, I do see need for mechanisms to further coordinate the 
federated pieces at the end where federation is occurring - such as 
getting a subsidiary device to answer the call from a sibling device. (I 
just don't see that as an alternative to a sip dialog for establishing a 
media session.)

However I *don't* have cycles to allocate to this work now, beyond 
general review and comment.

	Thanks,
	Paul