Chairs: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Spencer Dawkins <
The chairs thank Paul Kyzivat for providing notes for these meeting minutes.
Slide Presentations: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/MARTINI/Jan-Interim/
Jabber room: martini at jabber.ietf.org (Please join)
Keith Drage made a formal objection to discussion of three drafts submitted after the submission deadline. Hadriel Kaplan explained that he had trouble with the draft submission tool, Keith said not a sufficient excuse. He isn’t asking to prevent discussion – but to note for future meetings.
Spencer made the determination to allow discussion to continue, since these drafts were not working group documents and discussion would inform working group decisions about next steps, as MARTINI completes its chartered deliverables.
Adam Roach: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-martini-gin-10
The GIN draft was not discussed in detail. Spencer pointed
out that the draft was just finishing IETF Last Call, and we’ve gotten very few
comments that needed to be resolved.
Hadriel Kaplan, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-martini-glass-00
This is for alphanumeric AORs. Bulk-register any provisioned
AoR as if individually registered.
Not really different from the way GIN works with E.164
numbers.
John Elwell: is this for email style, or is it for non-e164 numeric ones? Answer that it’s really up to the service provider, but practically things that look like numbers will probably be treated as numbers.
On “other solutions for bob@ssp.co.ca” John indicated
support for option 1.
Question by Hadriel if this can be informational, or if it needs to be standards track.
Do we need to publish anything at all? Bernard said yes,
because this is changing the applicability statement for GIN.
Keith disagreed – he thinks applicability only narrows
scope, not expands it. He thinks a standards-track doc that extends GIN.
Martin Thompson asked why not modify GIN. But Adam said GIN
is too far along for that – GIN is done. (the draft is
currently in IETF Last Call.)
Adam confirms that this will need to be standards track.
Spencer says he doesn’t want to make call to adopt this draft
*this* week, because people are seeing it for the first time. He polled the
room asking if anyone sees trouble ahead if we try to adopt this later.
John said he wants to discuss all three drafts before deciding next steps.
Hadriel Kaplan: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-02
This draft handles local numbers. Hadriel doesn’t think
domain-scale numbers need a new draft – just register to that domain
(separately from the GIN registration).
Hadriel explained the non-context case – he wants to handle
because some PBXes can’t handle the phone-context.
But this is complicated.
Hadriel said if we want to take on this work we should
consider liaison with 3GPP, ETSI, etc.
John is in favor of doing something to align with 3GPP.
Hadriel said he doesn’t think IETF should even do the work unless we can align
with them.
Keith said that TISPAN/3GPP already has something, and they
won’t be interested in something from us that does the same thing differently.
Spencer concludes that if we want to recharter to do this we should first have the discussion with the other groups.
Hadriel Kaplan: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-martini-vermouth-01
Hadriel is looking for input and help on this from others
that have more expertise in this area.
Proposes a new event package. Has
example, but he is hoping for xml expertise from others.
Discussion by John and Martin about how to
represent removed things. Response from Adam and
others that normal delta syntax for event state will handle this.
Discussion of the pros/cons of restricting
the regex syntax for describing the numbers.
Charles E asked if this can handle ranges of alphanumeric
names. Answer is that this depends on the limitations on the regex.
Spencer has three questions for each draft:
1)
Is it possible to extend the MARTINI charter to
do this work, or do we send back to DISPATCH?
2)
Who is interested in seeing this done?
3)
Who is interested in working on it?
John Elwell asked that we judge the
level of interest before considering the other questions.
Cullen remotely comments that it’s hard to assess without
knowing stance re 3GPP.
Spencer, as editor for SIP Forum SIPconnect 1.1, says that
the SIPconnect 1.1 interest is for E.164 numbers, and that interest for AOR
forms is much less.
Recommendation to leave this open for
further discussion on the list re the individual drafts.
Gonzalo responds to Cullen – 3GPP has a solution so from
their perspective we need to come to them – they aren’t looking for anything
from us. Hannu recommended sending liaison in form of question.
Hannu asked if a liaison is coming – there is meeting next week. General sense is that won’t happen that soon, if ever.
Spencer and Bernard plan to request that the working group is concluded when GIN is published – the other drafts don’t have enough interest to justify requesting a recharter at this time.
Spencer and Bernard plan to request that the mailing list remain open, in case there is future interest.