Agenda and Status

Agenda Bashing

- No comment

Chair Update

- Charter summary was presented by chairs. Chair noted that we are running behind on milestones

- Invite Transaction Handling Correction is ready for WGLC according to authors and chairs

- Example security flows needs reviewers

- Etage extension: Looking for new editor to take of IESG comments

- IPv6 ABNF Fix: current plan is to publish as AD-sponsored draft

Event Rate Control

Salvatore Loreto

- Recap presented

- Chair asks if anyone understands what we are doing. A few thumbs up.

Chair volunteers to explain to people who don't understand this draft

- Note that this draft allows inclusion of Event header in a response.

Something not clear in RFC3265

- Author suggests that draft is ready for WGLC

- Author finished presentation early and chair requested for him to sing

INFO Method

Christer Holmberg

- Summarised activities since last IETF meeting including update that incorporated WGLC comments

- Request for reviewers since it was a major rewrite

- Open issue: what is required to register an info package. Alternatives presented.

- comment by Eric Burger that the point is to make it easy for someone to register a package with a balance for interoperability

- Jon Peterson: we should consider IANA requirements. He asks the question if we are going to increase or decrease

interop with this draft. Issue of interoperability was discussed vigorously.

- Comments from Eric and Hannu Hietelahti that battles for standards in IETF take too long

- suggestion by Hisham Khartabil to have AD sponsored drafts towards RFCs to speed things up

- Robert Sparks suggests that we instruct IANA to only take a package name when specification around package name has been submitted

- Hum called for specification required. Consensus was for specification required

- Open issue: Do we mandate Recv-Info in re-INVITE response + ACK

- Eric and Adam suggest that it should be included

- This was compared to offer-answer. Adam clarifies that it is not quite the same since it is not a negotiation

- Hum was taken to include recv-info. consensus was to include

- Robert asserts his concern that we don't have actual packages to guide us to the right answer. Discussions would go smoother if we do


Mary Barnes

- Presenter summarised current status and changes since last update to draft. One update since last ietf meeting

- Presenter asked the question if this draft is ready to adopted by the WG. Hum was taken. Consensus to take draft as wg item.


Agenda and Status

* Agenda Bash - no changes

* Status - Chairs

Example Security Flows still needs more review Etags in conditional notification looking for new author

IPv6 ABNF fix - moving forward as AD sponsored instead of adopting in SIPCORE

* Event Rate Control - Salvatore Loreto

A new mechanism to update rate control parameters mid-dialog described - no objections encountered Ready for WGLC - watch list for announcement Make sure GEOPRIV participants agree this meets their requirements

* INFO - Christer Holmberg

Major rewrite based on WGLC comments

Open Issue: What is required to register an INFO package?

Lots of discussion on namespace vs interop, specification required vs expert review

Hum: Specification Required or Different alternative.

Consensus call by chairs is to use Specification Required.

Open Issue: Require Recv-Info in re-INVITE for 3pcc Discussion supports inclusion in target refresh

Hum: Put info in any message can change it plus responses or Disagree.

Consensus to include this in every message.

Robert: Would be useful to have actual packages - will this actually get used?

Discussion about which packages might be standardized.

* History-Info and Target URI - Mary Barnes

Revised once since last IETF

Use cases from draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery moved into document Appendix Discussion about how voicemail server knows which one to use.

Hum: Adopt as working group item as charter milestone for URI parameter delivery? Consensus to adopt.