Presence and IntComm WG

["Ben Chinowsky" <>]

*Action Items as of May 5*

(new)
[AI] All will send suggestions for the Austin demo to the list.
[AI] Ben T. will aggregate the Austin suggestions for discussion on the May 6
call; this will be the main agenda item for that call.
[AI] Joe will maintain a list of Austin demo ideas on the PIC web site.
[AI] Joe will analyze the statistics on portal traffic.
[AI] All will send Ben T. suggestions for a name for the demo-specific mailing
list, and Ben will set up the list.
[AI] On the May 13 PIC call, the group will discuss putting together a report 
on
experiences with the PIC trials so far.
[AI] Ben T. will see if Internet2 Health Sciences Program Manager Mary Kratz 
can
join the May 13 PIC call for a discussion of possibilities in this area.

(from before Arlington)
[AI] Larry will arrange a conference with the Cisco location-technologies
expert, bearing in mind that the PIC working group can't do NDA.
[AI] Jamey will follow up with his contact at Microsoft.

*Attendees*

Jeremy George (chair) - Yale
Joe Rork - Ford
Jamey Hicks - HP
Dennis Baron - MIT
Xiaotao Wu - Columbia
Deke Kassabian - Penn
Ben Teitelbaum - Internet2
Bruce Mazza - Avaya
Jeff King - Wave Three
Candace Holman - Harvard
Ben Chinowsky (scribe) - Internet2

*Discussion*

Bruce Mazza gave a short introduction to Avaya's interest in PIC. They think
presence will become a killer app, and want help ensure that PIC gets
implemented in products in such a way that it will actually get used. Avaya is
also involved in SIP; they have built presence into a SIP phone similar to
Columbia's, and also have a SIP-based hard phone available. Avaya is moving
toward server-based approaches to presence. Avaya's many customers include
several active Internet2 university and corporate members. Possible areas of
collaboration with PIC include emergency services and national call language
routing.

The group reviewed the demo in Arlington. We haven't gotten much feedback, and
much of what we have gotten on the demo itself was negative. On the other 
hand,
feedback on the PIC project more generally -- whether this is seen as 
something
worth doing -- has been entirely positive. Jamey provided some statistics. The
PALS server has 152 URIs in the presence table, but some have zero on-time. 
The
location server lists 635 wireless targets, with about 500 on the Internet2
network, and 290 that directly marked Internet2 as SSID. The most observations
made of a single target was 680; the most packets from a single target was
500,000. The top ten users each had between 1000 and 2000 minutes of on-time.
There was general agreement that the overall participation rate (around 10% of
those registered for the meeting) was pretty good; Ben T. noted that he'd 
heard
a lot of comments along the lines of "this is cool -- sorry I haven't had time
to download and participate." [AI] Joe will analyze the statistics on portal
traffic. Joe noted that the poster session was also a success, though it would
be good to prepare earlier next time and draw more people. Ben T. observed 
that
the demo was "less flaky" than last time. It appears that interest in the
underlying technology is the main motivation for participants; many of them 
were
telecom people.

The group has decided to set up a separate list for demo-specific issues.
[AI] All will send Ben T. suggestions for a name for the demo-specific mailing
list, and Ben will set up the list. So far "pic-dev" and "rtc-trial" have been
suggested; Ben is looking for a name that makes it clear that this list is
intended to involve participants from outside the PIC working group.

The group agreed that the next demo will be at the Fall Internet2 Member 
Meeting
in Austin (not at the July Joint Techs), and discussed what to do differently.
Ben T. suggested raising visibility and telling more of a story, keeping in 
mind
that we're creating a model of what a campus service might look like. He
suggested that we want to get to a point where someone who's not familiar with
the technology can get a picture of what's available and how to put it 
together
on their own campus. Ben also suggested bringing in other groups to work on 
the
demo. In particular:
- The VoIP WG (and SIP.edu in particular) could build kiosks for the demo. In
addition to helping with the "I didn't have time to install it" problem, these
could be used to highlight SIP.edu more generally. Joe suggested a separate
location kiosk, with a map to show who's where.
- The H.350 group could get involved in deploying H.350 in the demo. Clients
using H.350 could use MAC addresses to index the WiFi access table and
autoconfigure with name and URI. Ben knows of at least one client that already
uses H.350.

[AI] All will send suggestions for the Austin demo to the list. [AI] Ben T. 
will
aggregate the Austin suggestions for discussion on the May 6 call; this will 
be
the main agenda item for that call. [AI] Joe will maintain a list of Austin 
demo
ideas on the PIC web site. [AI] On the May 13 PIC call, the group will discuss
putting together a report on experiences with the PIC trials so far.

Finally, Jeremy noted that there is interest in PIC at NIH. Possible uses
include finding doctors and keeping track of Alzheimer's patients. [AI] Ben T.
will see if Internet2 Health Sciences Program Manager Mary Kratz can join the
May 13 PIC call for a discussion of possibilities in this area.