[Ecrit] Notes from ECRIT virtual interim 18-August

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

Many thanks to Dwight for taking notes, and to the WG members who 
participated in the discussion.

Meeting Notes


ECRIT Virtual Interim – August 18, 2022, 7:30 AM PDT


Attendees:  Randall Gellens, Doug Cunningham, Dwight Purtle, Mia Chia, 
Jerry Eisner, Darrin Morkunas, Jason Sweney, Terry Reese, Fae Black, 
Brian Rosen, Jim Kringle, Brooks Shannon, Guy Caron, Jamie Sullivan, 
Erik Loberg, Henry Unger, James Kinney, Jordi, Justin Prahar, Matthew 
Tenold, mhammond, Michael Fain, Michael Smith, Brandon Abley, Michael 
Vislocky, Mike Hooker, Paul Smerek, Steve Howser, Suresh Gursahaney, 
Terry Reese, Victor Burton, William Pellegrini, Roger Marshall, Ryan 
Keeling, Salman Ali, Amy McDowell, Daniel Hagan


A NENA Zoom account was used for the meeting. It was explained in the 
interim notice sent to the WG mailing list that the meeting will occur 
under IETF Note Well rather than the NENA IPR policy. The NENA IPR 
notice did appear automatically for users to accept before they joined 
the meeting, but the document author and the chair explained that since 
this was not a NENA meeting the NENA IPR notice was not applicable to 
this meeting. The IETF Note Well notice was displayed to the attendees 
at the beginning of the meeting.


The purpose of the meeting was to attempt to reach consensus on a 
question regarding draft-ecrit-lost-planned-changes.


Randall Gellens, ECRIT co-chair who chaired the meeting, gave a brief 
statement regarding the draft RFC’s purpose. He described the point of 
discussion that had not yet reached consensus and was the reason for the 
meeting. The open issue was whether LoST clients could be informed of 
planned changes to civic address locations by registering for 
notification from the LoST server, or through polling the server (using 
a separate interface) by the clients using a token received previously. 
Email discussion had indicated substantial support for both approaches.


Significant discussion followed. Multiple people spoke for and against 
both approaches.


Brian Rosen, the author of the draft, stated that he believed either 
approach would work but he had a slight preference for the notification 
approach. His objective was to resolve the question (either way) and 
proceed with advancing the draft. Randall Gellens said that extensive 
past discussion had shown that many WG members had a strong preference 
for one or the other, but no one had raised a serious technical reason 
why either approach could or should not be used. He recommended 
proceeding with the approach in the most recent draft (polling) unless 
the group decided otherwise.


While there were strong opinions about which was the best approach, 
there was general agreement that either approach was workable from a 
technical standpoint.


After much further discussion, a “virtual hum” was conducted using 
the Zoom chat. The count was Notification 4, Polling 10, Abstain 9.


After the virtual hum, Randall Gellens, as WG cochair, asked if anyone 
had an objection to proceeding with the polling option. Hearing none, he 
declared that there was at least rough consensus to proceed with the 
polling approach. Brian Rosen, the author of the draft, voiced his 
intent to proceed with a new revision using the polling approach.


The ECRIT meeting was adjourned at 8:32 AM PDT.

Dwight Purtle, scribe