[from the charter text] > 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. Regarding the name 'xcon' versus something like 'sipxcon', as the paragraph above states, XCON does not want to preclude the possibility that its mechanisms will work with other signaling protocols. It's possible that a mechanism for conference control designed with SIP in mind could have some applicability to other protocols (MGCP and Megaco come to mind - more likely than not, anything SDP-based - but perhaps even non-IETF protocols like H.323, and so on). In that sense I think the work really is somewhat more generic than SIP - the group will not go out of its way to ensure its applicability elsewhere, but the work isn't so tightly-coupled to SIP that applicability in the rough neighborhood is impossible or even vastly unlikely. As far as I can tell, the paragraph above strikes the right balance, and doesn't make unreasonable or ambitious claims about applicability. Perhaps that paragraph's wording could be improved, or it could be placed more prominently in the charter, or something (suggestions welcome). But I can't imagine the charter text could be construed to imply that protocols like, for example, XMPP would be bound or even encouraged to support the results of XCON. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Rose [mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:29 PM > To: Peterson, Jon > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon) > > > jon - sorry for the delay in replying. > > fundamentally, i think it comes down to accuracy in > labelling. if the sip > folks want to do conferencing, then they should have a > working group to do > that. however, the charter for that working group should not > imply that the > scope of the working group is anything beyond sip. > > a reasonable person reading the charter would conclude that > the scope of the > working group is somewhat more generic than sip. > > if the goal for this working group is to be generic, then the > charter is > likely unacceptable since it assumes "facts not entered into > evidence", > i.e., it is sip-centric, and there is a fair body of deployed > work that > manages to do conferencing very well without using that > acronym. if that is > not the intention, then i suggest that the working group be called > something like sipxcon to avoid any confusion. > > as to whether the working group belongs in apps or tsv, a generic > conferencing working group clearly belongs in apps. however, > a sip-specific > working group can probably comfortably reside in either. > > /mtr >