1. CLUE WG IETF-85 Mary Barnes (WG co-chair) Paul Kyzivat (WG co-chair)

2. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: – the IETF plenary session, – any IETF working group or portion thereof, – the IESG or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, – the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, – any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, – any working group or design team list, – or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, – the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879). Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 for details. A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements. A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public. 2

3. Status 1.Framework document was thought to be stable, but new and some fundamental issues are being raised: – Document structure - fairly easy fix (but requires cycles) – Other issues require careful consideration – Individuals originally dedicated to FW document no longer have the BW or are no longer involved in CLUE/IETF at all. 2.Individual documents in various stages: – RTP requirements and supported topologies identified. Details being worked. – Data model is being developed – Signaling discussion continues - what information can be communicated using SDP and what should be in CLUE specific signaling – Rough call flows 3.Progress is a little slow - not as much dialog on the mailing list. Participation in weekly meetings is decreasing.

4. Objectives 1.Work through solution details and resolve some of the technical issues 2.Agree revised WG deliverables and document structure (e.g., Framework split) 3.Agree documents to use as starting points for WG deliverables 4.Volunteers to serve as document authors/editors and contributors for the WG deliverables. (Note: we can use a lot of material from existing individual documents as starting points for docs for WG deliverables)

5. Agenda – Monday (09:00-11:30) 09:00-09:10 Agenda and Status (Chairs) 09:10-9:30 Framework(Andy Pepperell –remote) 9:30-10:10 Data Model (Roberta Presta) 10:10-10:50 CLUE and SDP Signaling (Roni Even) 10:50-11:20 RTP Mapping (Roni Even) 11:20-11:30 Plans for Tuesday 5

6. Agenda - Tuesday (13:00-15:00) 13:00-13:10 Agenda bash(Chairs) 13:30-14:00 Proposed FW reorg, new milestones (chairs) 14:00-14:30 Call Flow ? (Rob Hansen) 14:30-14:50 Issue Review (Chairs) 14:50-15:00 Way forward (chairs) 6

7. Current WG deliverables Jul 2011Submit informational draft to IESG on use cases Jul 2011Submit informational draft to IESG on framework and requirements Nov 2011 Submit standards track specification(s) to IESG to support framework and requirements

8. Data Model Call Flows Requirements Working Towards a Solution Use Cases RTP Usage Signaling

9. Proposed Revised WG deliverables May 2013 Use Case document (Informational) May 2013 Requirements document (Informational) May 2013 Framework (Standards Track) Oct 2013 Data Model document (Standards Track) Oct 2013 CLUE and SDP Signaling (Standards Track) Oct 2013 RTP Mapping (Standards Track) Oct 2013 Call Flows (Informational)