Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT

My humble suggestion is that draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data is both straightforward and highly beneficial.  While IETF tradition would suggest that items with such a high benefit/cost ratio should be delayed indefinitely or abandoned in favor of items that are more intractable,  I'd suggest a concession to common sense in this isolated instance.

Of course, in order to ensure that the WG does not debase itself in an orgy of productivity, tradition requires that the WG take on a number of work items which are "hard" only because the wrong questions are being asked.   I'd assert that both Unauthenticated Access and PSAP callback  fall in this category.    

Unauthenticated Access is "hard" because it represents a solution without a real problem.  There is no regulatory requirement for this today, nor is there likely to be one in the near future because the "solution" would itself be a problem and because technology such as femtocells will make the "problem" disappear in due course.

PSAP Callback is "hard" largely because of the disconnect between the PSTN way of thinking and the reality of VOIP, which will result in extended (and largely fruitless) "discussions", until the passage of the leaves the obvious solution in plain view, like a whale washed up on the beach.  Serializing other work items until this "hard" problem is "solved" will essentially cause them to wait in the queue until our teeth are but a memory. 

> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:19:50 -0400
> From: mlinsner@cisco.com
> To: ecrit@ietf.org
> Subject: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT
> 
> During the meeting last week the following drafts were discussed in the
> context of accepting them as WG items.
> 
> draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data
> draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback
> draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access
> draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location
> draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea
> 
> The chairs and ADs have reviewed the level of interest in these, compared
> the work to the current charter and believe these fit within the scope of
> ECRIT.
> 
> We asked during the meeting if anyone objects to accepting any or all of
> these drafts as WG items.  So, now, we're asking on the list.
> 
> If you object to any of these drafts becoming WG items, please explain if
> you think the work is something ECRIT should not do, or if you simply have
> problems with current version of the particular draft.  No response is a
> show of support for all of this work.
> 
> Once the above question is answered, the chairs will devise a work plan to
> finish the accepted work.
> 
> Also discussed in the meeting was the priority order of getting these drafts
> completed, and it was the general feeling that psap-callback,
> unauthenticated-access, and trustworthy-location were the most difficult and
> would take more time.  Of those three the general feeling was the
> psap-callback was the highest priority.  If you have an opinion on which
> draft should completed first, please send it to the list.
> 
> Please respond by COB on Wednesday, 8/11/2010 if you have objections to any
> of this work, or you have strong feelings on the priority of the work.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Marc, Richard, Roger-
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit