Re: [splices] Way forward for the WG
gao.yang2@zte.com.cn Tue, 12 April 2011 13:13 UTC
Return-Path: <gao.yang2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: splices@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: splices@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61192E075D for <splices@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 06:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LwyauE-R5kK3 for <splices@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 06:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4F2E0709 for <splices@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 06:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 125201917726163; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:13:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 69889.3170586594; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:02:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p3CDDbF4022281; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:13:37 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gao.yang2@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <4DA449E0.3030904@ericsson.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 7A353BA5:02D23D19-48257870:00471375; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF7A353BA5.02D23D19-ON48257870.00471375-48257870.0048BF09@zte.com.cn>
From: gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:10:06 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-04-12 21:13:39, Serialize complete at 2011-04-12 21:13:39
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0048BF0848257870_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p3CDDbF4022281
Cc: splices@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [splices] Way forward for the WG
X-BeenThere: splices@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Loosely-coupled SIP Devices \(splices\) working group discussion list" <splices.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/splices>, <mailto:splices-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/splices>
List-Post: <mailto:splices@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:splices-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices>, <mailto:splices-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:13:54 -0000
Hi Gonzalo, We(ZTE) care about this topic. Because of having no time for the meeting in Prague, I did not join the face to face meeting. I can join the discussion on the maillist, and ask other ZTE guys for the face to face meeting for the next time. Then, back to the charter itself, I think this topic is quite meaningful. And there's some operators contact us to talk about the requirement of sharing streams between UEs in IMS. Last one, I think this topis is overlapped with IUT topic in 3GPP. How to handle the relationship of the two topics in IMS deployment is interesting. Thanks, Gao Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 发件人: splices-bounces@ietf.org 2011-04-12 20:47 收件人 splices@ietf.org 抄送 主题 [splices] Way forward for the WG 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. Thanks, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ splices mailing list splices@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/splices -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
- [splices] Way forward for the WG Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [splices] Way forward for the WG gao.yang2
- Re: [splices] Way forward for the WG Paul Kyzivat