1. SIPPING Working Group IETF 69
Mary Barnes (WG co-chair)
Gonzalo Camarillo (WG co-chair)
Oscar Novo (WG Secretary)

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 3978 (updated by RFC 4878) and RFC 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 3978 (updated by RFC 4878) for details.

3. Other Notes Need at least two Note Takers Jabber Transcription :
Need a mediator for Jabber session for questions.
MP3 streaming
Use the microphone, and state your name
Wireless: Make sure your computer is not in adhoc mode

4. Day 2 Agenda 1300 – Status and Agenda Bash (Chairs) – 5 min
An Extension to SIP Events for Pausing and Resuming Notifications (Mohammad Vakil) – 15 min
SIP File Directory (Miguel Garcia) min
Transparent B2BUA (Xavier Marjou) – 15 min
Replace Instant Message in SIP (Da Qi Ren) – 15 min
Response Code for Indication of Terminated Dialog (Christer Holmberg) – 15 min
1430 – Media Description for IKE in SDP (Makoto Saito) – 15 min

5. How do we progress requirements for docs proposing normative SIP changes?
Several recent individual drafts define requirements which very likely lead to normative SIP changes.
Proposing to NOT separate requirements into SIPPING WG docs for progression (i.e., the model we’ve followed in the past for other work)
In order to progress individual drafts to SIP WG for consideration, propose to do a WG review - 2 week “Requirements Review” - of requirements aspects of documents and determine if it’s ready for SIP consideration.
Will define a “ship to SIP” milestone to ensure these docs are handled in a timely manner.
Obviously, will coordinate with SIP WG chairs/ADs

6. Another draft of interest
Scaling Requirements for Presence in SIP/SIMPLE:
draft-houri-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-00
Request folks to review and provide feedback.