Re: [Rucus] Scoping question about rucus BoF

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin

Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> Hi Hannes, all,
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:16 PM
>> To: Martin Stiemerling
>> Cc: rucus BoF
>> Subject: Re: [Rucus] Scoping question about rucus BoF
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> you raised a couple of points. I will try to give you a short 
>> answer now and longer answers later:
>>
>> * BOF Description
>>
>> It is currently on my private webpage (and in emails posted 
>> to the list) but it is not on an IETF page.
>> That's quite common at this stage.
>>     
>
> I do know this ;)
>
> I was just wondering about not finding anything on the several email lists related to rucus.
>
>   
When you register for the mailing list then you can find the link to the 
text.

>> * Agenda
>>
>> I will update the agenda as I find more speakers. Currently, 
>> I got the confirmation from Henning to speak about 
>> architectural aspects. Jim Fenton is going to give a 
>> presentation about "Lessons learned from Email Spam work" and 
>> either Bernard or Lakshminath will speak about RFC 5111. 
>>     
>
> Could be a good idea.
>
>   
>> I would like to have someone from the privacy and from the 
>> XMPP/Jabber community but I do not yet have confirmations.
>>     
>
> I don't see the reason for this.
>
>   
Interesting.

There are a couple of privacy related questions that come up with regard 
to this topic in the past. Learning something about this would be helpful.
The XMPP/Jabber work is as important as hearing about the Email 
Anti-Spam work given that XMPP/Jabber is about real-time communication 
and many of the work we are doing here right now has been done by these 
folks years ago already. Would be interesting to hear what their big 
picture was (since this is not described in any of their documents).


>> As such, the agenda is still work in progress. Suggestions 
>> are welcome!
>>     
>
> Here is a change proposal for the agenda (moving "legal" things first) and giving more space for the chair to explain what's up in the BoF:
>
>  Title                                                   Duration
>   ---------------------------                          -----------
>   Introduction                                          (chairs, 15)
>   Intro of RFC 5111                            (chairs/ADs, 5)
>
>   RFC 5039 Overview                                       (TBD, 10)
>
>   Architectural Considerations                     (Tschofenig, 30)
>     (based on 
>      draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction-02.txt
>      draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-00.txt ) 
>
>
>
>
>   Discussion                                       (all, remaining)
>   Warp-up                                               last 10 mins
>                                                        ------------
>
>
>   
The reason why I put the RFC 5111 presentation to the end was it relates 
to the charter discussion.

>>  
>> * RFC 5111
>>
>> This document is pretty now, I agree. The idea is also pretty 
>> novel for the IETF itself.
>> Hence, the ADs thought it would be useful to have a short 
>> presentation by the authors of that RFC to explain the 
>> community that an Exploratory Group actually is.
>> I think that's a good idea since I believe around 90% of the 
>> folks in the room have never heard about this concept before.
>>     
>
> I would shift it to the beginning, as this will definitely impact the discussions. Also, it is more useful to put the planable things upfront, i.e., getting free time at the end for the necessary discussions.
>
>   

See above but I am easy to convince.

>> * Scope
>>
>> As indicated by Cullen in his mail the scope has be made 
>> precisely. We should use the mailing list for doing so. I 
>> also understand that most people are working on draft updates 
>> during these too weeks. Hence, I do not expect too much 
>> feedback before the draft submission deadlines are over.
>>     
>
> Yes, I agree that most people are busy with writing drafts. And my intention was to give the whole scoping discussions a kick-start ( or slow-start).
>
> My brief scoping proposal for rucus (open for discussions!):
> - SPIT as threat for SIP is foreseeable, but not fully understood to all extend.
> - RFC 5039 is used as problem statement for SPIT
> - rucus should define an architecture/framework for SIP to mitigate SPIT
>   
I intentionally used the term "reducing unwanted communication" in the 
BoF proposal since I believe we are not only talking about SPIT.


> - rucus should produce a set of requirements how to mitigate SPIT
>   
In my past IETF work I got the impression that a lot of the work on 
requirements was wasted time (btw, discussion about terminology was 
useful since it often ended up in the same document). I think once we 
roughly agree on the big picture then the work on the solutions is "easy".


> - rucus output used as input to sipping
>
>   
Whether any subsequent work should be done in SIPPING is something I do 
not worry about at this point in time (also since it is up to the ADs to 
decide).

>   
>> One thing I got as input was that we should not investigate 
>> anything relating to the interpretation of RTP. The IAB 
>> thought that this is very much a research issue and I agree 
>> with their assessment.
>>     
>
> I assume this refers to investigation of RTP playload, i.e. voice/video?
>   
I will respond to this issue in a separate mail.

Ciao
Hannes
>   Martin
>
> [e-mail]   <== NEW ADDRESS
>
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
>
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014  
>   

_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus