Skip to main content

INtermediary-safe SIP session ID
charter-ietf-insipid-03

Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -02-00) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -02-00) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-26 for -02-00) Unknown
Thank you for including the mention of privacy in the charter. There will be a clear trade-off between the objectives of this work and the desire for user-privacy: what business, a user might ask, is it of a transit node to know who is calling or who they are calling?

I think it is probably enough that the charter places privacy in scope, but it should not come as a surprise to the WG if the IESG seated at the time they request publication gives a very hard look at all the privacy implications of their work.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-25 for -02-00) Unknown
The purpose of this rechartering is to add a second document to the insipid deliverables (my apology for how that sounds, but I didn't pick the WG name).  With the addition of the second document, the grammar in the last paragraph has become fractured (the first sentence has a comma splice), and the paragraph has become long.  I strongly suggest splitting it this way:

   This group will focus on two documents:

   The first document [...etc...]

   The second document [...etc...]

Now, as to the wording of the description of the second document:

The first sentence reads very awkwardly to me, and I *think* I understand it.  May I suggest this rewording, assuming it's correct?:

NEW
   The second document will define an indicator that can be added to the
   SIP protocol to indicate that signalling should be logged.
END

You can then change "Such marking" in the following sentence to "The indicator".  If my revision is not correct, then the description of the document is even more unclear than I thought, so please reword it for clarity.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-00) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-00) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-01) Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-00) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-00) Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-25 for -02-00) Unknown
"session tracking" sounds bad - is that tracking for billing or something else?  Maybe we should just pick another word or drop it if it's sessions tracking for billing, troubleshooting, etc.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-26 for -02-00) Unknown
I agree with Sean's and Adrian's comments. Making this not turn
into a long lived bit of personally identifying information should be
a top level requirement.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-26 for -02-00) Unknown
I share Sean's concern, and wonder if we need to check IETF consensus on continuing to pursue work that seems to impact privacy?
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02-00) Unknown