1. RAI Open Area Meeting IETF 81, Quebec Gonzalo Camarillo Robert Sparks

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 The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices Any IETF working group or portion thereof Any Birds of a Feather (BOF) session The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB 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).RFC 5378RFC 3979RFC 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.RFC 5378RFC 3979 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.

3. Administrative Tasks Blue sheets Two note takers Jabber scribe

4. Agenda Survey results so far of the process in RFC 5727 Open discussion

5. RFC5727 Intended to improve handling of new work proposals and ease completion of work taken on Created the DISPATCH process –The whole area as its scope –WG Chartered in April 2009 –First official meeting in July 2009 (IETF 75) Updated the SIP Change policies –P-headers were deprecated –Easier registration of header fields for experimental or private use Informational RFC or external document Designated Expert –Clearer registration for event packages RFC Required Designated Expert

6. DISPATCH Structure Decisions on how to handle particular work proposals are made in DISPATCH The actual work is executed elsewhere –As a WG, a BOF, an AD-sponsored RFC,...

7. DISPATCH Track Record 1 Post BoF charter review (atoca) 3 BoFs recommended (rtcweb, codec, e2md) 2 Dispatched to existing WG 9 New WG recommended (8 formed) 2 Progression as AD sponsored recommended 4 No further work recommended (and several ongoing conversations)

8. Dispatched Existing working groups –Sound level indication (AVT) –Action referral using REFER (Splices) AD sponsored –Reason in responses –SIP Forum User-Agent Config No further IETF work recommended –Profile datasets –DTMF Info –Interconnect guidelines –Q4S

9. Ongoing Conversations Session Identifier –SIPSCOTCH charter not advanced, but conversations on the general problem still being discussed

10. Groups Formed NameFormed Name Expanded sipclfSep-09 SIP Common Log Format martiniDec-09 Multiple AoR reachabiliTy InformatioN Indication codecJan-10 Internet Wideband Audio Codec siprecMar-10 SIP Recording socMay-10 SIP Overload Control saludJul-10 Sip ALerting for User Devices splicesJul-10 looSely-couPLed sIp deviCES atocaAug-10 Authority-to-Citizen Alert cussAug-10 Call Control UUI Service for SIP clueJan-11 ControLling mUltiple streams for tElepresence viprMar-11 Verification Involving PSTN Reachability rtcwebMay-11 Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers

11. Message Trends

12. Documents and Milestones

13. Meetings

14. Observations SIPCLF (Sep09-) –Took significantly longer than expected –Close to pubreq on all documents Martini (Dec09-Mar11) –Heavy use of virtual interims –Heavy use of trac Siprec (Mar10-) –Heavy use of virtual interims

15. Observations SIXPAC –Insufficient energy to complete forming group Atoca (Aug10-) –Extremely low activity Salud (Jul10-) and Cuss (Aug10-) –Low activity warnings at IETF80

16. Discussion What has worked well in the DISPATCH decision process? Where has it helped? What isn’t helping as well as we hoped? Is DISPATCH helping us produce better charters? Is DISPATCH making the best decisions so that the actual work gets done effectively?