[10:52:55] --- LOGGING STARTED
[11:22:26] --- resnick has joined
[11:23:32] --- resnick has left
[13:18:43] --- resnick has joined
[13:19:12] --- hardie has joined
[13:19:20] <hardie> Howdy
[13:19:21] <resnick> OK, looks like it's up.
[13:19:32] <hardie> I just set up a backup at conference.ecotrph.net as well
[13:19:40] <resnick> K.
[13:19:44] <hardie> But I would far prefer to use this one, since it is logged and was announced.
[13:19:54] <hardie> But I'll leave the backup up, in case we get blocked.
[13:19:59] <resnick> Right. Wanna let him know that it looks like it's working?
[13:20:09] <hardie> Okay.
[13:20:13] <resnick> ttyl.
[13:20:17] <hardie> bye
[13:20:19] --- resnick has left
[13:39:26] --- stpeter has joined
[13:44:46] --- peter has joined
[13:45:32] <peter> hi
[13:45:32] --- stpeter has left: Lost connection
[13:45:57] <hardie> Hi
[13:46:23] <peter> sorry for the server troubles, we'll have to migrate to new software soon, I think
[13:46:36] <hardie> Thanks for getting it back up so quickly; I appreciate it.
[13:46:56] <hardie> And I'm sure the WG will as well.
[13:47:11] <peter> it seems as if there's a hole in our server monitoring scripts, we're investigating that now
[13:47:50] <hardie> cool
[14:00:12] --- peter has left
[14:01:02] --- stpeter has joined
[15:37:23] --- stpeter has left
[16:49:25] --- hardie has left: Replaced by new connection.
[19:01:03] --- hardie@qualcomm.com has joined
[19:15:44] --- hardie@qualcomm.com has left
[20:36:05] --- gparsons has joined
[20:54:29] --- gparsons has left
[21:58:32] --- hardie has joined
[22:01:06] --- resnick has joined
[22:11:17] <hardie> FYI: Mute is *6 and unmute is *7.
[22:15:28] --- eburger has joined
[22:15:45] <eburger> I'm here now, too.
[22:20:01] --- Randy has joined
[22:20:12] --- ietflemonade has joined
[22:24:40] <hardie> So we're looking for a pointer to the slides now?
[22:24:48] <hardie> (Not that there are slides up, but you know what I mean
[22:24:49] <hardie> )
[22:25:26] --- Glenn Parsons has joined
[22:25:50] --- eburger has left: Disconnected
[22:26:51] --- alexeymelnikov has joined
[22:27:49] <hardie> 多 謝 Glenn 您的 iChat 幫助
[22:28:00] <Randy> Can iChat join a Jabber group chat?
[22:28:57] <hardie> iChat has a jabber client, so if you have a jabber account, you can.
[22:29:08] <hardie> go into account preferences, add the account
[22:29:13] <hardie> then join chat
[22:29:33] <hardie> alexey are you in Beijing?
[22:29:57] --- anabolism has joined
[22:30:09] <resnick> Randy, you on twice?
[22:30:26] <anabolism> yes, I seem to be on both via iChat and Adium
[22:32:16] <anabolism> Everyone appears "anonymous" in iChat
[22:32:25] --- eburger has joined
[22:32:28] --- eburger has left
[22:34:34] --- shmaes has joined
[22:35:58] <resnick> Still waiting for a presentation URL.
[22:36:11] <hardie> And a requirement for interim meetings, your AD notes.
[22:36:24] * resnick will likely not stay awake long enough to be a useful scribe.
[22:37:01] <hardie> Randy is at serious risk, since he's on twice
[22:37:07] <resnick> heh
[22:37:32] <anabolism> Only one is updating though
[22:37:38] <alexeymelnikov> I will try to take some notes
[22:37:49] <hardie> Alexey volunteers to scribe?
[22:38:05] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: Yes
[22:38:09] --- anabolism has left
[22:38:40] <resnick> PDF
[22:38:44] <Glenn Parsons> slides are here:
[22:38:44] <Glenn Parsons> http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/lemonade/slides64-5/slides64-5.html
[22:39:00] --- Randy has left: Logged out
[22:39:23] --- anabolism has joined
[22:39:52] <alexeymelnikov> Lunch was very demotivating (read "good")
[22:39:59] <hardie> China Mobile wins lunch
[22:40:18] <alexeymelnikov> On Agenda's slide:
[22:40:26] <alexeymelnikov> Local host presentation
[22:40:40] <alexeymelnikov> on drivers for mobile activities
[22:40:49] <alexeymelnikov> Meeting goals
[22:40:54] <alexeymelnikov> Status of documents
[22:41:03] <alexeymelnikov> OMA liaison review
[22:41:13] --- anabolism has left
[22:41:41] <alexeymelnikov> Then a more detailed talk about Profile Phase 2: proposed content, drafts, what is in and out.
[22:41:44] --- anabolism@jabber.org has joined
[22:42:01] --- anabolism@jabber.org has left
[22:42:11] --- Randy has joined
[22:42:45] <alexeymelnikov> Discussion on "in vs. out" is tentative and high level
[22:43:06] <resnick> Hear hear!
[22:43:28] <alexeymelnikov> Ted suggests to skip Status of the documents
[22:43:38] * resnick agrees with Ted
[22:44:00] <hardie> If you have questions on those, please ask on the list.
[22:44:08] <hardie> That's progress!
[22:44:43] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: I've just sent IMAP ABNF (catenate dependency) to Scott, he said he will pass it on to IESG. Can you double check with Scott that the document is Ok?
[22:44:50] <hardie> Sure.
[22:44:56] <alexeymelnikov> Phase 2 drafts:
[22:45:58] <alexeymelnikov> quick reconnect and filtering to be discussed tomorrow as per Barry's request
[22:47:37] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane is discussing if Notifications draft (draft-ietf-lemonade-notifications) was approved by WG chairs.
[22:48:18] <hardie> In case you can't hear me, the basic point was that the chairs have to approve drafts as draft-ietf-lemonade-XX-00.txt; if this is a new LEMONADE draft that is not draft-ietf-lemonade, then you send a ticket. But it is easier to send it as a renamed draft.
[22:48:40] --- eburger has joined
[22:48:55] <eburger> Reload the supplemental page and you will see Alexey's slides, too.
[22:48:57] <alexeymelnikov> Content transformation, notifications, compression (app level) and firewalls to be discussed today
[22:49:59] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane proposes to have discussion about Phase 2 document first.
[22:50:13] <hardie> Got Alexey's slides--thanks
[22:51:06] <hardie> Is the local host presentation available?
[22:51:35] <alexeymelnikov> Presentation from China Mobile on drivers for mobile email.
[22:51:52] <eburger> We're working on my getting it for posting.
[22:51:55] <hardie> thanks
[22:52:31] <hardie> If you want to go ahead with it while you're gettingit ; I (speaking personally, mind you) would say go ahead
[22:52:32] <alexeymelnikov> [Should I describe slides in Jabber for people?]
[22:52:47] <hardie> We'll get the slides soon enough, I'd say.
[22:53:13] <hardie> But if you can echo anything that said that is not on the slides, those reviewing the jabber logs would find it of benefit.
[22:54:17] <alexeymelnikov> Talking about Markets in China
[22:54:56] <alexeymelnikov> Convergence between markets (intersection of computing, Internet and wireless)
[22:55:50] <alexeymelnikov> On average a person receives 20 email per person (4-20Kb). GPRS receive time is 10sec
[22:56:02] --- shmaes has left: Disconnected
[22:56:05] <alexeymelnikov> Slide about Service Requirements
[22:56:22] <alexeymelnikov> Mobile email vs Email comparison
[22:56:33] <eburger> 9 minutes to slides showing up. Sorry :(
[22:56:54] <alexeymelnikov> For email: terminal is high performance, has enough storage
[22:57:14] <alexeymelnikov> Network: reliable, high speed, low cost
[22:57:30] <alexeymelnikov> Mobile Email is opposite
[22:58:02] <alexeymelnikov> Minimal requirements from China Mobile:
[22:58:08] <alexeymelnikov> push email
[22:58:16] <hardie> Recommendation is push, not pull because of data channel issues?
[22:58:40] <alexeymelnikov> smart attachment handling, attachement transcoding.
[22:58:46] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: not clear
[22:58:55] <hardie> I'll ask at the end of the preso--thanks.
[22:58:57] <alexeymelnikov> Compression
[22:59:12] <alexeymelnikov> Server-side forwarding
[22:59:23] <alexeymelnikov> ...missed the rest.. Sorry
[22:59:45] <alexeymelnikov> Value Chain of MEM Service
[23:00:33] --- shmaes has joined
[23:00:53] <alexeymelnikov> Carrier, network provider, service provider, enterprise, ...
[23:01:16] <alexeymelnikov> Different business models are described, see slides
[23:01:27] <Randy> Difference is who operates which equirement?
[23:01:43] <Randy> s/equirement/equipement
[23:03:17] <alexeymelnikov> Preferred Business Model
[23:03:53] <eburger> Slides up - refresh supplelmental page
[23:03:56] <alexeymelnikov> Expectations from China Mobile
[23:04:09] <alexeymelnikov> Accelerate standardization work
[23:04:34] <eburger> exactly in time for last slide :(
[23:05:16] <alexeymelnikov> Need standards and devices supporting them ASAP
[23:05:50] <eburger> Ted: Fan mentioned wanted push rather than pull. Why?
[23:06:00] <alexeymelnikov> Ted is asking why Push is preferred - in order not to keep the channel up?
[23:06:20] <Randy> Opportunistic too slow, non-opportunistic wasteful
[23:06:24] <alexeymelnikov> Fan: Push to provide better user experience
[23:06:42] <Randy> (was my understanding of Ted's suggestion as to why CM prefers push)
[23:07:19] <Randy> Ted, please repeat we missed the start
[23:07:32] <Randy> Ted, please repeat we missed the start
[23:07:34] <alexeymelnikov> Pete: why not leave the data channel up?
[23:07:49] <resnick> Ted said "Difference between Poll and Pull."
[23:07:50] <Randy> Pete -- up or dormant?
[23:07:59] <resnick> I'm here.
[23:08:09] --- eburger has left: Replaced by new connection
[23:08:23] <Randy> Pete: traffic channel up or dormant (not you up or dormant)
[23:08:31] <resnick> Dormant.
[23:08:47] <hardie> Okay, so this is a capacity issue for the operator, with attachment state rather than bandwidth
[23:08:48] <resnick> (So long as it comes up when there is traffic sent from the remote end)
[23:09:03] --- eburger has joined
[23:09:27] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn: you've mentioned 3 models, which model is the preferred?
[23:09:29] <alexeymelnikov> Fan: model C
[23:10:41] <hardie> Is it not possible to have a mix of B & C? Rim seems to allow this, with a RIM account and enterprise acount that is enabled by RIM to talk to the blackberry.
[23:11:28] <alexeymelnikov> Randy: if Lemonade is successful, can subscriber can connect to ANY Lemonade Server or only to the server provided by the Service provider?
[23:11:46] <hardie> Note that many enterprises would not allow traversal of their internal email to an external provider.
[23:12:15] <alexeymelnikov> Fan: no desire to encourage people to connect to third party servers, but will not actively prohibit it.
[23:13:58] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: some enterprises will have a desire to allow combination of models
[23:15:30] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: are we forcing enterprises to use VPNs to access third party servers?
[23:16:00] <hardie> Stephane is correct; vpns create a lot of challenges (see the mobike documents for some examples)
[23:16:09] <hardie> Even for nomadic connections, they are problematic.
[23:16:24] <hardie> For real mobility, hand off and SA continuity are very hard.
[23:17:07] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn: Lemonade will enable all 3 described models
[23:17:25] <hardie> (Clapping for Fan's presentation from the peanut gallery)
[23:17:29] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn is talking about Meeting Goals (slide 8)
[23:18:08] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn&Eric have rebranded Phase 2 as "Profile bis"
[23:18:29] <alexeymelnikov> Drafts before IETF 65 - Feb 27, 2006
[23:18:46] <alexeymelnikov> Post meeting updates - Apr 3, 2006
[23:18:52] <hardie> Remember that the 00 draft deadline is earlier.
[23:19:33] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: the outcome of todays meeting before Feb 27?
[23:19:38] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn: yes
[23:20:45] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn will let us know tomorrow if goals are achievable :-)
[23:20:52] <hardie> Glenn: I was wrong the 27th date is the -00 draft cut off date. The -01 draft deadline is a week later.
[23:21:21] <eburger> we knew that, but we wanted to get stuff in time this time. Too late now it's in the Jabber log :)
[23:21:58] <hardie> You can always impose a stricter deadline.
[23:22:03] <hardie> You strong-arm chair, you.
[23:22:20] <eburger> {wimper}
[23:22:22] <alexeymelnikov> Trio doesn't depend on RFC2192bis (for Phase 1)
[23:24:58] <hardie> By the way,
[23:25:54] <hardie> Alexey, there are several old references in the normative references of 2192bis. I assume they were adopted from 2192, but I believe some of them are obsoleted by later versions.
[23:27:27] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: yes, updating references in 2192bis is one of the biggest headaches. We are working on this
[23:27:41] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn is talking about OMA MEM liaison
[23:27:46] <hardie> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=190
[23:27:48] <eburger> The liaison https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=190
[23:27:57] <eburger> [Ted - you beat me!]
[23:28:10] <hardie> I didn't bother to write "The liaison"
[23:28:16] <hardie> So you got clarity, and I got speed
[23:28:19] <alexeymelnikov> There was a confusion on draft-ietf-lemonade-oma-mem-realization.
[23:29:01] <alexeymelnikov> Chairs are sorry for the confusion
[23:30:06] <alexeymelnikov> OMA were concerned that IETF is restating OMA document.
[23:31:00] <alexeymelnikov> OMA was also unclear about who owns OMA TS. They thought that IETF hijacking
[23:31:09] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane wants to talk about this
[23:31:41] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: there were multiple camps in OMA, some people were concerned, some weren't
[23:31:51] --- Randy has left
[23:32:11] --- Randy has joined
[23:32:11] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: People in OMA didn't know what "IETF draft" means
[23:32:57] <alexeymelnikov> + (2 points explained by Glenn)
[23:33:57] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn: OMA has provided new requirements recently
[23:34:32] <alexeymelnikov> and we will keep them in mind
[23:35:07] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: we need to clarify to OMA what exactly Lemonade Wg is going to do
[23:35:15] <hardie> I assume by "picture" Stephane means ascii art? ;-)
[23:36:01] <alexeymelnikov> Yes Ted, let's start format discussion here :-)
[23:36:32] <hardie> sorry, it's late; if I get punchy, just have glenn ban me.
[23:36:54] <eburger> no such luck
[23:37:43] <resnick> What does Stephane want to do?
[23:37:45] <hardie> I urge people not to craft a document in the meeting time--can someone propose it on the list, for edits? I think that would be a better use of the time.
[23:37:56] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: Let see if OMA has any problems with response from Lemonade WG
[23:38:14] <hardie> I think Stephane wants to agree on the picture saying "we're doing that", then do the wordsmithing later?
[23:38:27] <alexeymelnikov> Pete/Ted: Stephane promised it will take only a couple of minutes
[23:39:43] <hardie> I'm looking at Figure 6.
[23:40:02] <resnick> I'm glazing over looking at figure 6.
[23:40:31] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: Lemonade WG wants to provide ME-2a, ME-2b and ME-3 (from NF to notification box) interfaces (in OMA term, see the arcitecture picture)
[23:42:24] <alexeymelnikov> OMA doesn't care about URLAUTH, it is "internal" to Lemonade
[23:44:46] <hardie> Can someone point the camera at Stephane?
[23:46:04] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: do we tell OMA that Lemonade Profile is a package, or is a set of building blocks?
[23:46:33] --- xiaodong has joined
[23:48:23] <alexeymelnikov> Stephane: define profile 2 as a "single protocol"
[23:48:42] <alexeymelnikov> Don't let OMA modify pieces of the Profile
[23:48:43] <hardie> As a single capability, perhaps?
[23:48:59] <hardie> That is composed of multiple bits?
[23:49:21] <alexeymelnikov> Ted: Yes, as a single capability. But we will have 3 protocols anyway.
[23:49:57] <hardie> That's part of what is making me concerned about saying single protocol.
[23:50:14] <hardie> But "Lemonade Profile BIS" can imply lots, if we say it does
[23:52:22] --- eburger has left
[23:54:56] <shmaes> Agreed
[23:56:05] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn wants to talk about technical details on OMA liaison
[23:57:45] <alexeymelnikov> Glenn: question #1 - doesn't the protocol need to cope with lost notifications?
[23:57:48] --- Fan Xiaohui has joined