and really I have to wonder why IETF would develop a conferencing solution that favors the telephony community over other Internet interests. at least at first glance, that doesn't seem in the best interests of the Internet as a whole. Keith > [ resent to general discussion list... ] > > > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Transport Area. > > The IESG has not made any determination as yet. > > The following description was submitted, and is provided > > for informational purposes only: > > > > Centralized Conferencing (xcon) > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Current Status: Proposed Working Group > > > > Description of Working Group: > > > > ... > > > > Initially this combination of protocols will be specified with > > respect to session setup with SIP. The solutions developed in XCON > > will not preclude operation with other signaling protocols; however > > it is anticipated that the use of other protocols would require > > modifications which are out of scope for this working group. > > > > None of the protocols defined by this group will be SIP, although > > the SIP specific event notification framework will be used. The > > group will use the high-level requirements and framework already > > described by documents published by the SIPPING WG. > > may i inquire as to why this working group is SIP-specific? or more > accurately, why does this charter say it isn't SIP-specific, when the > contrary is true. > > for example, in the xmpp commuinity, there's a robust and > well-implemented specification for "multi-user chat" which arguably > provides a superset of the proposed xcon work product (cf., > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0045.html) > > if the proposed working group is going to develop something for SIP, > then the charter should say so. > > if the proposed working group is going to develop something > general-purpose, then the charter should reflect reality by requiring > an evaluation of existing solutions to this space, as is usual for > working groups that are not starting with an existing specification...