> >sometimes we have X come to us to move their work through our >process after they have not gotten what they wanted from the more >appropriate sdo. so, if we were to take it on, we could be badly >stepping on someone else's turf. what goes around comes around, >and we don't want sdo turf wars. do we want itu to 'help' with >smtp? On this point I'm in total agreement with Randy ... I've still have a problem with this ...why come to IETF with this work ?... this is XML messaging ...why didnt the Jabber community choose OASIS or W3C..which strikes me as a more logical home for these kind of things and there is a larger community of XML expertise there. Just because there is a community that has a good idea and wants to work on it does not mean the IETF should take it on. Randy is right about process and precedent..... we kill off BOF's all the time for any number of irrational reasons even when there is a strongly committed core or people willing to work the issue. And, contrary to popular opinion, it is perfectly reasonable to kill off or delay WG charting because of the current IESG work load, especially in the applications area. That said ..at the BOF the Jabber folks remarked and I pointed out that there may be a larger issue of asynchronous XML messaging that may or may not have relevance in the IETF. Patrik's comments at the plenary were quiet appropriate that we are beginning to deal with lots of XML things and how we move these things around and where these fit into the general IETF view of Architecture is rather relevant. Jabber MAY or MAY NOT be part of that ..I don't know and I say that as a certifiable SIP bigot and on that basis I'm personally willing to keep a open mind on the issue. I'm still trying to discover how Jabber might be complimentary to SIMPLE in much the same way IMAP is complementary to POP3. ( ok maybe a bad analogy). But I wish that those proponents of a Jabber WG would understand that some of us in the SIP community have some real concerns about the effect or perceptions in the marketplace that chartering this work in the IETF might have. They are real and probably cloud our thinking ..but simply dismissing them as irrelevant or stupid is not going to help gain consensus on chartering this work. I'll be real blunt here the difference between asynchronous XML messaging and asynchronous XML signalling is really fine and that really worries me. >fwiw i have nothing against jabber. some of my best friends jabber >:-). ditto ...blabber, slobber depending on time of day.. >i am even trying to get a secure jabber server working (and >am hitting problems). i am just concerned about process and >precedent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166 1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or <mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
