Re: [splices] Way forward for the WG

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Gonzalo,

I am *interested* in this work. (I was working on something similar when 
I first got involved with sip 10 years ago.)

And while I have been opposed to new mechanisms for coordination between 
the two ends, I do see need for mechanisms to further coordinate the 
federated pieces at the end where federation is occurring - such as 
getting a subsidiary device to answer the call from a sibling device. (I 
just don't see that as an alternative to a sip dialog for establishing a 
media session.)

However I *don't* have cycles to allocate to this work now, beyond 
general review and comment.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 4/12/2011 8:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the SPLICES session in Prague, there was consensus in the room not to
> work on scenarios that require updated UAs on both ends. That is, the
> new SPLICES functionality would need to be available as long as one end
> supported the new mechanisms. Such consensus needs to be confirmed on
> the list. Simon Pietro will take care of that.
>
> It is obvious that this WG is running very low on energy. The little
> energy I have seen came from people interested in scenarios where both
> ends supported the new mechanisms to be developed. People against
> updating both ends have been mostly opposing work on those mechanisms,
> as opposed to driving new work.
>
> So, I am concerned that when this decision is confirmed, there will not
> be any energy left in this WG.
>
> At this point, I would like to ask whether people are willing to
> allocate some of their cycles to work on the problems described in the
> charter of this WG or if I should simply shut down the WG for lack of
> energy.
>
> In short, I want SPLICES to be either an active WG or not to be a WG at
> all. I do not want it to be in a kind of limbo where nothing happens and
> nobody cares.