[Foip] FW: [sipcore] [dispatch] I-D Action:draft-jones-sip-forum-fax-problem-statement-00.txt

Neil Weldon Neil.Weldon at dialogic.com
Mon Feb 1 05:00:40 EST 2010


I suggest I add this as an agenda item for Wednesday's call so we can discuss and get feedback. If anyone has thoughts on how we should move this forward please let us know before then if possible.

Regards, 

Neil 

Neil Weldon
Director of Technology
CTO Office

Dialogic Distribution Limited
4034 Kingswood Avenue
Citywest Business Campus
Saggart, Co. Dublin
IRELAND
Tel:       +353 1 630 9000 ext 231
Fax:      +353 1 630 9099
Email:   neil.weldon at dialogic.com
Web:    www.dialogic.com

Dialogic Distribution Ltd., a limited company.  Registered in Dublin, Ireland, registration #201976 with a registered office at Riverside One, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2 Ireland.  

This e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. No waiver of privilege, confidence or otherwise is intended by virtue of communication via the internet. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, or are not named as a recipient, please immediately notify the sender and destroy all copies of this e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: foip-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:foip-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: 27 January 2010 17:58
To: foip at sipforum.org
Subject: [Foip] FW: [sipcore] [dispatch] I-D Action:draft-jones-sip-forum-fax-problem-statement-00.txt

Folks,

Cullen Jennings replied with the following in regard to publication of the
SIP Forum problem statement as an Informational RFC.

Personally, I think there is value in documentation and, historically, RFCs
have been a repository for similar kinds of documentation.

Nonetheless, I guess there are some concerns here to which we need to
respond.

How do you think we should reply to this message?

Paul 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy at cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:22 AM
> To: Paul Jones; Dean Willis
> Cc: dispatch at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] [dispatch] I-D Action:draft-jones-sip-forum-fax-
> problem-statement-00.txt
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think about what we want to accomplish by publishing this
> draft as an RFC. I was very happy to read the draft and think there is
> some good stuff in it.
> 
> The draft contains a mixture of things. Partially it is a liaison to
> IETF from sipforum about what they are up to with a sipform work group.
> This is great to get but I don't think there is much long term need to
> record that in RFC form. The more important part to publish IMHO is
> documenting some issues, problems, deficiencies and/or bugs in some
> IETF specifications that are leading to lack of interoperability in
> deployments. That type of problem statement would be great information
> to get written down in a concrete form that allows the appropriate WG
> to go fix the problems.
> 
> I do realize fax works by using protocols from multiple SDOs and that
> does complicate things. I think it would be beneficial to document
> specific problems found with IETF protocols. I'm less interested in the
> IETF publishing problems with some other SDOs protocols.  You've caught
> me at a particularly sensitive time having just spend 1/2 my time for
> the last several months dealing with the IETF relationships with other
> SDOs. And if anyone mentions royalty free fax algorithms my head might
> explode :-)
> 
> So what I am getting at is could we move this draft more towards
> something that documents what is observed in real world deployments and
> discuss the problems with the existing IETF protocols, then WG Last
> Call it in the appropriate WG(s) (I'm assuming things like mmusic,
> fecframe, perhaps avt) and publish it as informational? The goal of
> publishing it would be to provide a problem statement for future work
> in theses WG.
> 
> Does that make sense to people? Reasonable path forward? I'm open to
> other ideas but whatever we do, I would want to understand why
> publishing whatever document we published was going to help make things
> work better. And on that note, I'd like to express many thanks to SIP
> Forum and all the people who worked on this effort for helping get fax
> working better.
> 
> Cullen
> 
> PS - Paul, thanks for trying to make less work and Dean, as punishment
> for your sins I'm nominating you for AD to the next Nomcom :-)
> 
> On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> 
> > Dean said:
> >>> "AD Sponsored submissions represent a significant workload to the
> >>> IESG."
> >>>
> >>
> >> If the document is well enough drafted that it doesn't create a lot
> of
> >> work for the AD, then there isn't that much extra work.
> >>
> >> One can also use an external document shepherd to make sure the doc
> is
> >> really "IESG ready" before the AD gets deeply into it. PaulK would
> be
> >> good at this ;-).
> >>
> >> Besides, Cullen needs more work to do.
> >
> > So, Paul K. and Cullen should each be made aware that you've given
> them an
> > assignment.  They'll thank you at the next meeting. ;-)
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sipcore mailing list
> > sipcore at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 


_______________________________________________
FoIP mailing list
FoIP at sipforum.org
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/foip




More information about the FoIP mailing list