Minutes for INSIPID virtual interim #2 Meeting ============================================== 25th June 2012: 9:00 - 11:00 Pacific US time -------------------------------------------- Chairs: Keith Drage Gonzalo Salgueiro Present: Keith Drage Gonzalo Salgueiro Paul Jones Dan Romascalo James Polk Laura Leiss Paul Kyzivat Salvatore Loreto Agenda and note well -------------------- Keith Drage apologized for the late start, with the unforgivable excuse that he had forgotten all about the interim. Note well was read. The posted agenda was agreed. Requirements document --------------------- Before adopting the text as a WG document, Keith (as chair) sought clarification of what was being adopted. It was clarified that the scope of the document would be to cover: - use cases - requirements - how requirements are derived from the use cases While some of this material is missing from the document this would be the target, and the call for adoption would be on this basis. It was identified that improved text was needed for requirement 1A, and therefore someone needed to send text. It was agreed that requirements 5 and 6 should be merged. It was identified that for this we really need the underlying use case, which seemed to be that we should not be able to identify that the call went through an SBC. It was questioned whether we need to hide the fact that the id is changing, or only to hide the information. For requirement 7, Laura agreed to draft and propose a use case. For requirement 9, it was agreed to split this into 3, as it was likely the three interworking possibilities would be covered by three entirely different use cases. Whether we keep all three is of course open to discussion. The chairs made a call for volunteers to submit use case text. James volunteered for at least some of this work. Solutions document ------------------ The slides on the solutions document from the Paris meeting were presented. There was a discussion the impact of using XCON (in addition to SIP) on the solution. If XCON is impacted we may need a new requirement. An action was taken (not sure by who) to investigate this further. Paul identified for the MCU slide these could be To and From tags only. Can we default to only those if that is all we need? A walk through the document identified to remove section 4 entirely, and to expand section 3 to cover the requirements and use cases by reference. There was a discussion of the ordering of the two halves of the identifier between the request and the response. Next steps ---------- Call for adoption of WG draft will start as soon as new version issued with changes identified in this meeting.