[snip] > > > > 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. Well, from my perspective, the first paragraph cited above does indeed indicate that this work is oriented towards SIP, that adapting the work for some other protocol would entail changes to the model, and that those changes won't be considered in the proposed WG. So while one might be concerned by the fact that XCON is SIP-specific, I don't believe the charter is especially disingenuous about that. As to why this proposed WG is more or less SIP-specific, the charter arises from a set of framework, requirements and mechanism documents that were proposed in SIPPING. It was broken out from SIPPING because the community of interest in conferencing seemed diverse (and prolific) enough that the work seemed to merit its own WG. Also, the security responsibilities of conference administration require some pretty low-level selections for media stream security, and so on, that almost necessarily make this work specific to some set of underlying technologies. If it turns out that the products of the group do happen to be useful in other areas, all the better. > > 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 this specification is a superset of the proposed work, then it should serve as input to the group, yes (though obviously, it's a little easier for IETF participants to work with Internet-Drafts - the status of that document is a little unclear to me). I'm sure the group would love to be able to declare victory at the outset. During the comment period on this charter, we have already received a couple of notifications of existing work that is potentially serviceable (including one from the MSEC WG). Conferencing is certainly not a new problem; there's considerable existing work in this space both inside the IETF and elsewhere. XCON would no doubt welcome participation from any members of the XMPP community. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. > 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... > > thanks! > > /mtr >