On 7/23/02 at 8:18 AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >>>Anyway, given that they actually want to get work done under the >>>auspices of the IETF, I see no justification for turning them away. >>Given that this is a deployed product, I tend to agree. The work >>is going to get done; we may as well help it to get done as well as >>possible. > >i have no useful knowledge or opinion on the actual technical >subject, so my points may already have been answered. but the >reasons given above seem sufficient to put us in the paperclip >standards making business. i submit that relevance, expertise, >non-conflict with other standards groups, change control, etc. are >important criteria. I certainly agree that relevance, expertise, change control, etc. are important criteria for the IESG to review. I believe a review of the discussion here and the minutes of the BOF session will reveal that each of those criteria are well met: This is an application protocol deployed on the Internet, folks with the relevant expertise in the Jabber community and in the IETF community have expressed the desire to work on the problems with the protocol, and none of them are asserting the desire to have change control lie anywhere but within the IETF. However, I'm not clear why "non-conflict with other standards groups" is a criteria. Care to explain? pr -- Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102