Chairs: Eric Burger, Mary Barnes
Note taker: Shida Schubert

- Agenda Bash
- John explained the background.

- Jon.P asked why DRINKS not appropriate for this and asked whether a 
mini-WG is indeed needed.

- Mary explained that AD insisted that it is to be discussed in 

- Cullen explaining it seemed appropriate to put it through DISPATCH 
process to see how it should be handled.

- John Explained the scope of the charter.

- Adam asked whether the charter will include the mechanism to be used.

- John admitted that charter will have a text on the mechanism to be 

- Jon.P asked if there is enough expertise in the room to discuss the 
rational of usage of REGISTER to justify the text on mech. used in 

- Spencer explained that if the mechanism suggested is not used then 
it's not worth working on.

- Ben argued that mechanism to be used is already in the charter.

- Jon.P sees no problem with the fact that charter speficies the 
solution in the charter, but sees importance in discussing the 
mechanism to be used.

- Eric explained why REGISTER is proposed here.

- Alan explained how if other mechanism is used then it will break a 
lot of the deployments.

- Christer from CableLab expressing that REGISTER is currently used 
and don't want any delay.

- Jim agreed to some others that REGISTER be not be specified in the 
charter, it doesn't exclude it to be the solution.

- Adam agreed.

- asked what the definition of small/medium SIP-PBX.

- John answered up to few hundreds end points.

- Eric argued that large enterprise uses RFC3263 and that this is 
indeed for small to medium company.

- Markus asked how the endpoint will actually registers to the SIP-PBX.

- John/Eric explained that it's a local policy.

- John explained that it's all in the SIP Connect specification.

- John explained the rest of the slide.

- Barboba asked if the mileston is not too optimistic.

- Some agreed.

- Some hum suggestion from Jon.
  > Taking out REGISTER from the charter text, option-tag etc.etc.

- Spencer has some concern about derailing from using REGISTER as it 
will be harder for people to implement compared to use of REGISTER 
which modifies something people already implelment.

- Jon re-enphasized that all he is asking is to remove the text  on 
use of REGISTER from the charter which doesn't preclude the use of 
REGISTER as a solution.

- Spencer shows concern that leaving out the text on REGISTER or not 
deciding the technology used today, will delay the overall process and 
potentially make the work irrelevant.

- Eric presenting the questions to hum on.
   Q1: Leave the text as is.
    - Some hum.

   Q2: Take out the solution space.
    - Louder hum.

- Cullen asked whether Dynamic DNS is going to be an option now that 
solution is removed?

- Eric re-emphasizing if other approach is taken no one will accept 
the IETF solution.

- John Elwell saying if non REGISTER approach is adopted it will not 
be adopted.

- Christer from CableLab agress with John Elwell.

- Spencer explains that it may not be the right mechanism but it's 
what's going to be used with more likelihood.

- Adam questions why we are talking about the solution and not the 
problem space.

- Alan Johnston wanted to have the discussion on the use of REGISTER. 
What we do have to be deployable and not just a theoretical excercise.

- Jim explained how some of what's debated, such as "the solution 
needs to be something that will be deployed" can be included in the 

   Q3: Is there critical mass in IETF to work on the problem?
    - Eric comments as IETF and SIPForum participants are the same, 
indeed critical mass is in the room.

     - Robert disagrees that many of the SIPForum participants aren't 
here and that doesn't understand the culture of IETF.

     - Adam agrees to contribute.

    - Eric paraphrased the question by saying if people think there is 
not the critical mass to work on the problem.
      - YES.

   Q4: Is this the right place to do the work?
    - No objection.

   Q5: Will WG have high probability of success?
    - No comments.

- Spencer asked what will be the realistic date for completion of this 

    - Jim thinks may be to have a charter by January is the likely 

- John expresses that SIPForum needs a realistic date.

- Jim suggests March for WG or charter to be formed/finalized and June 
for the deliverable to be LC.

- Robert is uncomfortable that there isn't sufficient overlap between 
SIPForum/IETF to succeed.

- Spencer believes that last call on the topic had almost half of the 
participants participating in both organization, dismissing Robert's 

- Jon thinks that it's easier to solve if it's all about the telephone 
number, but if it's about the domain he's uncomfortable and is a lot 
more difficult to solve.

- Alan is happy with the suggestion Jon made.