RE: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> 
> Jon,
> 
> PJ> So while one might be
> PJ> concerned by the fact that XCON is SIP-specific, I don't believe the
charter
> PJ> is especially disingenuous about that.
> 
> On the other hand, it declares a statement of intended design constraint
> (being sip oriented) but provides no indication of what that means or
> why it is being chosen. As such, it is not possible to evaluate that
> choice.
> 
> Given that a working group charter is a contract for work to be done,
> the contract needs to specify its constraints in a way that provides
> helpful detail.
> 

I think that's reasonable, yes. Hopefully the document citations you counsel
us (below) to include would help with this to some degree. I also think
importing some high-level text to the charter making a few of the more
important points (i.e. the need to identify media security solutions that
can interoperate with application-layer conference administration) would
also probably be appropriate.

> 
> PJ> As to why this proposed WG is more or less SIP-specific, the charter
arises
> PJ> from a set of framework, requirements and mechanism documents that
were
> PJ> proposed in SIPPING.
> 
> Working groups that are chartered with documented constraints are
> expected to cite those documents. If there is a body of prior work, on
> which this working group is being offered as a continuation, then a
> person reading the charter needs to be able to review that work.
> 

Yes, this is also reasonable. The XCON BoF charter cited five SIPPING
documents (largely of a framework/requirements bent), and seven
contributions that were believed to be applicable to XCON itself, but those
documents were not carried over to the proposed XCON WG charter. I think it
would make sense for at least some of these documents to be included in the
WG charter as well.

> Otherwise it is very difficult for a public review of the charter to be
> based on anything substantial.
> 
> If there is no documentation for the constraints, then there is no
> substantial basis for imposing them, other than perhaps citing some
> concerns or perspectives.
> 

Thanks, this was very helpful.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
> 


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]