Hi Aki - > I happened to be at the Jabber BOF, which since has turned out to be a hot topic, at least judging from the discussions at the IESG plenary. As far as I understood, the objectives of the Jabber community were, that they mainly wanted a place for the protocol documentation to be published, and needed some expert review and help in sorting out the security services for the protocol. I didn't see an overwhealming desire to release the control for the development of the protocol to the IETF, but I may have misinterpreted things. > Hmmm ... I was at that BOF and heard a very different message. On change control, I heard "yes, we want to release change control to the IETF" repeated many times. That question was thrust at the presenters repeatedly, and the answer each time was a consistent "yes." I also heard that there were quite a few things that people felt should be worked on. I think security was brought up first, and it seemed to me that the discussions were so heated that perhaps there wasn't time for measured discussion as to the other things. So, while I agree that informational RFCs are one way to go, I also heard a group of developers both within the IETF and some that are new to the IETF wanting to do some work on asynchronous message passing in XML. I know that development of those mechanisms will be quite useful for the work that I do and I suspect that is the case for quite a few other people. This certainly isn't a rubber-stamp, "get the IETF imprint" effort, and a working group makes perfect sense to me. The protocol is mature in some respects, but there is still quite a bit of work to do and it is the kind of work we do in the IETF. The Jabber developers certainly shouldn't be penalized for having working code and real users. Regards, Carl