[Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03

["DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[e-mail]>]

I guess I got this wrong.

My starting point was a misinterpretation of Jonathan's indication way back that we were waiting for outbound, gruu and ice before we pushed this forward. 

Having thought about this some more:

-	Yes we should include internet drafts, but with some sort of explanation that they are included to encourage early implementation and demonstrations of interoperability of the protocol, and thus aid in the standards setting process; also that they identify were the WG is targetting a solution at a particular problem space and thus aid work towards a common solution. Additionally a warning that final IANA assignment of codepoints does not take place until shortly before publication, and thus codepoint assignments may change.

-	No we should not automatically include all WG drafts, but should assert some form of expert review. We seem to have somewhere up to 25% of working group documents that never make it to completion, and another fair average that still are not going to be there in the the next 3 years, judging by past performance. We are never obviously going to get this 100% right, and I don't think we should spill any blood arguing about the inclusion or exclusion of any draft, but I do think we should attempt to preguess this and miss some of these out. We want the market to try out the drafts in the document, but not get put off by us marketing to them something that will never fulfil their product timescales.

-	Yes we should include some author drafts, probably on the basis that an AD has sponsored them, or is about to sponsor them, through the IESG, and certainly if they have reached the RFC editor's queue.

I suspect the above is pretty much what is in the hitchhiker draft now, but I thought it worth at least putting it down on paper.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:46 PM
> To: Francois Audet
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Avshalom Houri
> Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> 
> The document includes any normative sip extension once it has 
> been adopted as a WG Item. So this does include stuff that is 
> "earlier" in the process; for example the sip-saml stuff 
> which (IMHO) is still a little on the early side. But once it 
> is a wg item it gets in there. I still think its fine to 
> publish hitchhikers as an RFC with those as references (to drafts).
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> Francois Audet wrote:
> > Same here. I prefer the whole list.
> > 
> > I checked again the list in the current document, and I didn't see 
> > anything that was "controversial" (i.e., all the drafts quoted are 
> > mature working group items).
> > 
> > If some of them were considered immature, we should remove 
> them. But 
> > otherwise, I'd rather we keep them in.
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stucker, Brian (RICH1:AR00)
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 07:58
> >> To: Jonathan Rosenberg; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; Avshalom Houri; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: RE: [RAI] RAI review of 
> draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> >>
> >> I would also prefer that I-D references be left in the 
> document. It's 
> >> very helpful to the community to not only know where SIP 
> is at when 
> >> you read the guide, but to know where it's headed. If for no other 
> >> reason than it prevents someone from thinking they've discovered a 
> >> novel problem and go off implementing a solution parallel to what 
> >> will soon
> >> (hopefully) be an RFC. Likewise, if they find that the I-D is 
> >> incomplete, it gives them a reference to make comments 
> against that 
> >> they may not have otherwise discovered.
> >>
> >> It's an informative document. What if we just copy 
> paragraphs two and 
> >> three of from the boilerplate "status of this memo"
> >> into the introduction as a warning to those who read the document 
> >> later as an RFC that I-D's referenced by the guide can change.
> >>
> >> Is there any harm in doing this?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:36 AM
> >>> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]; Avshalom Houri; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI review of 
> draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> >>>
> >>> inline:
> >>>
> >>> Francois Audet wrote:
> >>>> What about SIPS, which is already in hitchiker's guide, and
> >>> which is
> >>>> waiting on outbound because of a normative reference?
> >>>>
> >>>>     
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ----------
> >>>>     *From:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 01:01
> >>>>     *To:* Avshalom Houri; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>>>     *Subject:* RE: [RAI] RAI review of
> >>>> draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
> >>>>
> >>>>     (As WG chair)
> >>>>      
> >>>>     Just a note that I should have included with the WGLC.
> >>>>      
> >>>>     The intention with this document is to republish on a
> >> recurring
> >>>>     basis, and therefore to keep it up to date (say once a
> >>> year or so).
> >>>>      
> >>>>     The 1st versions is intended to include gruu, outbound
> >>> and ice, but
> >>>>     apart from that, anything that is not published in that
> >>> timeframe
> >>>>     will probably be removed unless there is exceptional
> >>> justification
> >>>>     for keeping it, with the idea that it will appear in
> >>> the next version.
> >>>
> >>> This is news to me...
> >>>
> >>> What I thought would happen is that we have references to
> >> everything
> >>> in the guide, and when the guide appears as an RFC, whatever 
> >>> references are at RFC status at that time, get RFC numbers.
> >> Everything
> >>> else is referenced as an I-D.
> >>>
> >>> I think you are suggesting that, instead, when we send this
> >> to IESG,
> >>> we remove any content and references associated with
> >> documents which
> >>> are not on track to publication around the same timeframe as 
> >>> hitchhikers guide itself. Indeed it will require us to 
> change those 
> >>> references to normative in order to get rfc-editor to do a
> >> REF hold on
> >>> hitchhikers till its dependencies clear.
> >>>
> >>> If my interpretation is correct, my next question is whether this 
> >>> applies to just the core specs or all of the specs.
> >>>
> >>> I personally would rather leave the document as is - include 
> >>> everything, and recognize that some references will be
> >> drafts rather
> >>> than RFCs when hitchhikers is published. Next round of 
> hitchhikers 
> >>> will have more of them as RFCs.
> >>>
> >>> -Jonathan R.
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> >>> Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 
> >>> 07054-2711
> >>> Cisco Systems
> >>> [e-mail]                              FAX:   
> [phone]
> >>> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: 
> [phone]
> >>> http://www.cisco.com
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> RAI mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> >>>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 
> 07054-2711
> Cisco Systems
> [e-mail]                              FAX:   [phone]
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
> http://www.cisco.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip