Re: [sipcore] Call for consensus: draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements

[as chair]

It has been nearly three weeks, and there is been no expression of 
interest in continuing this work. We will ask the area directors to 
remove it from our charter and to mark the draft as "dead."

/a

On 10/5/10 10:33 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> [as chair]
>
> As you can see below, the SIMPLE working group has decided to remove 
> draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis from its chartered 
> milestones.
>
> SIPCORE has a closely related work item: 
> draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements.
> It has been evaluated by the IESG, but has not been approved for 
> publication. The issue that is blocking its publication involves some 
> security related issues, which were to be addressed in the 
> interdomain-scaling-analysis. Further, the actual description of the 
> driving factors for the presence-scaling-requirements work are present 
> only in the interdomain-scaling-analysis work.
>
> With the interdomain-scaling-analysis work abandoned, the only path 
> for publishing presence-scaling-requirements would be to bring it back 
> to the working group, add the context that had been provided by the 
> interdomain-scaling-analysis draft, and address the IESG concerns that 
> have been raised around security and scaling.
>
> Given that the community of interest -- or disinterest, as the case 
> may be -- for the abandoned interdomain-scaling-analysis document is 
> almost certainly identical to that for the 
> presence-scaling-requirements document, it is a safe assumption that 
> SIPCORE can similarly remove the presence-scaling-requirements 
> milestone from its charter.
>
> So, I am posing the same question as the SIMPLE chairs: with the 
> interdomain-scaling-analysis work abandoned, is the 
> presence-scaling-requirements work still relevant? Are people still 
> interested in working on it? By that, I mean willing to spend time 
> doing focused reviews, offering feedback and maybe even text?
>
> Silence will be interpreted in the negative.
>
> /a
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis
> Date: 	Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:55:48 -0500
> From: 	Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
> To: 	Simple WG <simple@ietf.org>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We've had no expression of interest in continuing this effort. We will 
> ask our ADs to remove the milestone.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> It's been almost a week, and no one has responded. If we don't hear 
>> otherwise from people who want to invest their time to work on this 
>> draft by Monday, we will ask the ADs to remove this milestone from 
>> the SIMPLE charter.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> (as chair)
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis has been stalled for 
>>> a while now. We handed it over to the IESG some time ago, but 
>>> received AD feedback indicating it needed significant work.   It has 
>>> been cycle starved since then. The author may be in a position to 
>>> start working on it again.
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *My question to the working group is, is this work still relevant? 
>>> Are people still interested in working on it? By that, I mean 
>>> willing to spend time doing focused reviews, offering feedback and 
>>> maybe even text?*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Silence will be interpreted in the negative. *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Thanks,*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Ben.*
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Simple mailing list
>>> Simple@ietf.org <mailto:Simple@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simple mailing list
>> Simple@ietf.org <mailto:Simple@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>
>