Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Mon, 30 March 2015 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018741A88B4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1CVQIESUCsp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F95C1A88A6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15637 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2015 23:15:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by qproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2015 23:15:44 -0000
Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by CMOut01 with id 9yvd1q00R1MNPNq01yvghf; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:55:42 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=DIYcvU9b c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=Jklo8jbM_8AA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=HGEM6zKYvpEA:10 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=W9Dfw0_TAAAA:8 a=ll-iCDY8AAAA:8 a=M0OflfRGAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=vnREMb7VAAAA:8 a=5gDhc5HZJZo64uAapzEA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ivbTfD_dPm4A:10 a=6fpOX-4qs7AA:10 a=BQYh4w-RC7EA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=vZnAjMcCgIlV2oi3Lqcdj4srGXrFWo7XnUE9ySDQDbc=; b=Rj2pvX+4r8u/tdKFq8itdxLB9Iqnl897A2ywGcxBPfcGs16+28xSNhw3sh6txx2iewGmZxcxIuETCrfFv6UfvATbo87SI3Dba9d61teBIZMUHeo6xGwFagtePhpmC6y6;
Received: from [108.56.131.201] (port=54890 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1Ycian-0005C4-81 for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:55:39 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:55:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Thoughts from IETF-92
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: Thoughts from IETF-92
References: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.56.131.201 authed with richard+shockey.us}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L0VdpigI0CMZ6hKR3hxJP-uco64>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:15:46 -0000

1.  You need a bigger room for talks.  The session on Open Source was over
subscribed to say the least. I just walked away.

2. We need to be more accommodating to public policy folks and National
Regulatory Authorities.   Maybe ISOC needs to work on that. Some of us
have tried we get nowhere.

 We had a charming incident in some of the RAI WG¹s last week.

RAI had three distinct sessions dealing with highly sensitive public
policy problems with SIP. DISPATCH w/CNIT, the MODERN bof and STIR. Guess
who shows up.

https://consumersunion.org/end-robocalls

Needless to say they were met with open arms if not some polite bemusement
and they collected a pile of contacts etc including mine.

The CU folks told us that this is the NUMBER 1 issue their members
complain about. Yes it is our problem because we define SIP.

I can speak with some authority that the NRA's are very very concerned
about a lot of protocol issues re real time communications and a whole lot
more like Net Neutrality.  We (ISOC?) are not doing the proper outreach.
We are not being helpful.



‹ 
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683





On 3/30/15, 4:40 PM, "IETF Chair" <chair@ietf.org> wrote:

>Thank you all for a wonderful meeting. I wanted to thank all the sponsors
>and participants, and our host Google for their support. And the
>wonderful social event. Well done, you all!
>
>Here are some thoughts from me and Dan York, as the meeting ended:
>https://www.youtube.com/embed/R2G5eLkX1BM
>
>What are your thoughts? What were the important things coming out of the
>meeting for you? What can we do better next time? Are there new things
>that we should start to work on?
>
>Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
>