Minutes interim-2022-ecrit-01: Thu 07:30
minutes-interim-2022-ecrit-01-202208180730-00

Meeting Notes

ECRIT Virtual Interim Ð August 18, 2022, 7:30 AM PDT

Attendees:  Randall Gellens, Doug Cunningham, Dwight Purtle, Mia Chia, Jerry
Eisner, Darrin Morkunas, Jason Sweney, Terry Reese, Fae Black, Brian Rosen, Jim
Kringle, Brooks Shannon, Guy Caron, Jamie Sullivan, Erik Loberg, Henry Unger,
James Kinney, Jordi, Justin Prahar, Matthew Tenold, mhammond, Michael Fain,
Michael Smith, Brandon Abley, Michael Vislocky, Mike Hooker, Paul Smerek, Steve
Howser, Suresh Gursahaney, Terry Reese, Victor Burton, William Pellegrini,
Roger Marshall, Ryan Keeling, Salman Ali, Amy McDowell, Daniel Hagan

A NENA Zoom account was used for the meeting. It was explained in the interim
notice sent to the WG mailing list that the meeting will occur under IETF Note
Well rather than the NENA IPR policy. The NENA IPR notice did appear
automatically for users to accept before they joined the meeting, but the
document author and the chair explained that since this was not a NENA meeting
the NENA IPR notice was not applicable to this meeting. The IETF Note Well
notice was displayed to the attendees at the beginning of the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to attempt to reach consensus on a question
regarding draft-ecrit-lost-planned-changes.

Randall Gellens, ECRIT co-chair who chaired the meeting, gave a brief statement
regarding the draft RFCÕs purpose. He described the point of discussion that
had not yet reached consensus and was the reason for the meeting. The open
issue was whether LoST clients could be informed of planned changes to civic
address locations by registering for notification from the LoST server, or
through polling the server (using a separate interface) by the clients using a
token received previously. Email discussion had indicated substantial support
for both approaches.

Significant discussion followed. Multiple people spoke for and against both
approaches.

Brian Rosen, the author of the draft, stated that he believed either approach
would work but he had a slight preference for the notification approach. His
objective was to resolve the question (either way) and proceed with advancing
the draft. Randall Gellens said that extensive past discussion had shown that
many WG members had a strong preference for one or the other, but no one had
raised a serious technical reason why either approach could or should not be
used. He recommended proceeding with the approach in the most recent draft
(polling) unless the group decided otherwise.

While there were strong opinions about which was the best approach, there was
general agreement that either approach was workable from a technical standpoint.

After much further discussion, a Òvirtual humÓ was conducted using the Zoom
chat. The count was Notification 4, Polling 10, Abstain 9.

After the virtual hum, Randall Gellens, as WG cochair, asked if anyone had an
objection to proceeding with the polling option. Hearing none, he declared that
there was at least rough consensus to proceed with the polling approach. Brian
Rosen, the author of the draft, voiced his intent to proceed with a new
revision using the polling approach.

The ECRIT meeting was adjourned at 8:32 AM PDT.

Dwight Purtle, scribe