On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 2/7/11 12:44 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I was somewhat surprised to see this back in LC. I am still not aware of any
use case where this actually helps. I searched the IETF and WG lists for
email with the subject draft-ietf-sipcore-199 and I do not see a single
email that suggests there is support for this draft or the changes in it
since the previous LC.
This draft has no use that I understand how it helps - it is at best a very
limited optimization. The SIP standards is already too complicated with too
many extensions. I believe this draft makes SIP worse.Thought the draft
mandates that systems need to work even when the 199 are lost, I do not
think that is how the proponents of the work intent to use. I could be very
wrong but I presume that people intent to use to control middle boxes that
control media gates. It's broken for that but given that is not discussed in
the draft, it's hard to discuss how it is broken and what would be needed to
fix it.
I do not support publishing this draft as standards track without actual WG
discussion on what the problem is this draft solves and if there is WG
consensus that problem is worth solving.
Cullen:
Speaking as a chair of SIPCORE, I would like to clarify a minor point.
Although it may not have been your intention, your message can be read as
implying that the SIPCORE chairs and/or the RAI area directors have decided
to move this document forward without community input.
It was really just sloppy overly fast writing on my part - I did not mean to
imply that. The total time I'm willing to spend on this draft is pretty minimal.
For the benefit of those on this mailing list who were not involved in the
earlier stages of this document's progress: the initial community input on
whether to pursue the problem solved by this draft was taken at the
face-to-face SIPPING meeting during IETF 69. In particular, the minutes for
that meeting reflect: "Hum... in support of working on this problem."
In April of 2008, the requirements document was handed over from SIPPING to
the SIP working group for working on actual protocol mechanism. (The SIP
change process at the time limited core protocol changes to the SIP working
group, requiring a change in venue).
Within the SIP working group, there were at least 316 message in 38 different
threads on the protocol document over the one year period spanning April 2008
to April 2009. This period included a two-week long Working Group Last Call
period in November of 2008.
In April of 2009, the RAI area underwent a reorganization, which resulted in
the conclusion of the SIP working group. As part of the chartering of the
SIPCORE working group, this document (and its associated milestone) was
transferred to the SIPCORE WG.
In January of 2010, the document entered IETF last call for the first time.
During IETF balloting, certain issues were identified by the IESG, and
balloted as a "DISCUSS" position. Over the course of 2010, the document's
author worked with the RAI ADs to address these issues to the satisfaction of
the currently seated IESG.
I thought we were still in middle on conversation about what to do about any
this stuff - thus my surprise it was in LC again. Last email I had was you in
May of asking Christer if he was going to reply. He eventual did but it did
resolve what this was use for. It did point out that no one was complaining
about it. That caused me to send an email in June that said
"Silence is not consent - the WG does not care about this and there is not
consensus that it is useful, what it is useful for, or that it should be
published. I'd be happy to shown to be wrong as I, like I suspect many others,
don't care too much one way or the other. "
After that, other than people saying the IETF had to do this because 3GPP had
already made it mandatory, I had not heard any more about it.
As a result of these conversations, a technical issue involving interaction
with another SIP extension mechanism was identified, and brought back to the
SIPCORE working group. A resolution to the issue was identified in early
December 2010, and a revised version of the document was produced to reflect
this resolution.
Uh, you mean the one where the total traffic seems to be
Chair (Paul) proposed the WG should see if the WG was OK with it
Christer (Author) said he was OK with even though he did not really like it
Keith proposed some text without saying if he actually liked any of it or not
Christer (Author) said he was OK with it
And no one else said anything. Hopefully I failed to find the email, or lost
it, or am just confused, but I have a hard time imaging how that looks like
consensus in one of the largest WG in the IETF.
At every step of this process, the IETF, RAI, and SIP community has
opportunity for involvement. The volume of discussion demonstrates a
non-trivial interest in this mechanism.
Hmm ... I 100% agree there has been opportunity for involvement. I am talking
about the actually involvement since the previous LC over a year ago. In that
year, there looks to be mostly silence about any of the issues or changes to
the draft. I did not go do a good search but when I searched for the draft
name, I'm not seeing much discussion. If you tell me 10 people were actively
engaged in the last year and support these changes, I'm happy to agree I am in
the rough in the consensus and ignore the whole thing. But if you are telling
me that no one objected, then I do not believe silence is the same as
consensus.
/a
Anyways - I this is very much on my low priority list - I have not gone back
and looked carefully at the previous discussions.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf