DREGS DISPATCH WG Ad Hoc 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 DISPATCH. - 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 used. - 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 charter. - 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 charter. 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 work? - Jim thinks may be to have a charter by January is the likely outcome. - 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 concern. - 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.