Re: [salud] Shall we close the SALUD WG?

3GPP have a release 8 dependency on draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns so we need a home for this work to continue. The 3GPP community is still interested in this work and I believe the 3GPP community will contribute to this work in order to complete it. I am willing to review the revised draft.

I think the best thing is to let the work continue in Salud.

As Laura indicates a WG with only one or two drafts is likely to have a low level of activity. This was an issue I wanted to raise in the RAI area meeting but due to the ECRIT emergency callback identifier offline discussion I was unable to attend the RAI area meeting until just before it finished.

I think in dispatch in future we should try to ensure that WGs have a critical mass (not just one or two drafts and not just a handful of people), however we need to still be able to work on drafts that are of interest to a limited number of stakeholders. Maybe some small tasks could be in future combined in a single WG rather than split between mini WGs. For instance maybe the salud work and the cuss work could have been combined in a single WG. The participation in both of these has significant overlap. I know this may mean re-chartering groups and potentially having a scope of somewhat unrelated work but I think we can be too purist with the principle of dividing the work up narrowly. I think a balanced approach is needed where the level of participation and amount of work is also considered as well as the relationship of the scope of the work. 

Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: salud-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:salud-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Laura Liess
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:18 AM
> To: Gonzalo Camarillo; Dale Worley
> Cc: salud@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [salud] Shall we close the SALUD WG?
> 
> Gonzalo,
> 
> We had the last discussion between the 1-st and 20-th of July. We are
> in principle done with the requirements and use cases.  We also have
> in the current draft a mechanism proposal which is sufficient to cover
> the use cases we know of.
> 
> Dale would like to have the mechanism to be more general and in his
> last mail he promissed to come up with a proposal. I supposed people
> were busy with the IETF-meeting. But you are right, it's time to
> restart the discussion.
> 
> (I think little activity is often a problem for the mini-WGs.  This
> does not necessarily mean that people are not interested in the issue.
> )
> 
> Kind regards,
> Laura
> 
> 
> 2011/8/9 Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>:
> > Folks,
> >
> > during the last months, I have sent several low-energy warnings to this
> > list. Despite those warnings, I do not see any activity in this group.
> > My question to you is, why shouldn't we close this WG?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gonzalo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > salud mailing list
> > salud@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
> >
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> salud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.