When I put the summary together, I failed to notice that Harald had sent
a separate email with more specifics about his feedback. Mea Culpa, and
the summary entry for Harald's feedback should say "Ongoing discussion".
Ben.
On 27 Jan 2016, at 17:31, Ben Campbell wrote:
Here's a summary of the last call feedback I've seen so far, and
proposed actions:
*** Substantive comments: ***
- John Levine:
-- Change title to something more relevant.
-- Update contents to reflect that the ART merge has already happened.
Ben: Title changed to "DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP
Change Process" in working copy. Updated language to indicate the
merge has already occurred.
- Richard Shockey: The ART merge was not a good idea.
Ben: It's probably useful to discuss the success or failure of the ART
merge, but I don't think it's in scope for this draft. The draft
doesn't execute that merge, the update adapts to the it.
- Harald Alvestrand: The dispatch process has had poor results, and
should not be propagated:
Ben: I thought dispatch had worked reasonably well for RAI. As it is,
the authors do not have enough specifics to propose actions on this
comment.
- Jon Mitchell (OPS-DIR review):
-- Clarify the responsibility for "judgement calls" in section 2:
Ben: I've made the following change in my working copy:
OLD
Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly
adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters. For
borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a
dispatch-style group, or in an existing group is a judgement call
among the responsible Area Directors and chairs. Likewise, in cases
where an area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different
purposes or technology clusters, the decision about which group will
handle a particular proposal is a judgement call.
NEW
Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly
adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters. For
borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a
dispatch-style group or in an existing group is made by the
responsible Area Directors and chairs. Likewise, in cases
where an area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different
purposes or technology clusters, deciding which group will handle
a particular proposal is up to the responsible Area Directors and
relevant chairs.
END
-- The security considerations are not about security in a technical
sense.
Ben: While this is not about protocol or network security, it is about
the integrity of the standards process. In my opinion, that's
reasonable content for the security considerations.
*** Editorial: ***
Fixed several reported misspellings and typos
Thanks!
Ben.
On 8 Dec 2015, at 9:56, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change
Process.'
<draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2016-01-05. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
RFC 5727 defines several processes for the Real-time Applications and
Infrastructure (RAI) area. These processes include the evolution of
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related protocols, as well
as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups. This
document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility for the area and
working group structure, while preserving the SIP change processes.
It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so that they
can be easily adopted by other working groups.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.