Given the IM background in this discussion, I fail to see why there should be an IM-originated conferencing option to confuse everyone, when SIP conferencing is supporting all types of media and presence and IM just as well (plus events, user preferences, mobility etc.) in a consistent way. It is high time the IETF should get its act together and converge on the one single multiparty (conferencing!) multimedia session protocol: SIP. And avoid such confusions as Marshall does in the attached. Look at the huge penetration of SIP with wired and mobile service providers, as well as on tens of millions of desktops: The IETF SIP work is already the de facto standard. Let's just stay focused. It is thus entirely appropriate XCON should be a SIP oriented WG for centralized conferencing. Thanks, Henry Sinnreich MCI > -----Original Message----- > From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:vinton.g.cerf@mci.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:39 AM > To: Marshall Rose; Peterson, Jon > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon) > > As a prospective supplier of SIP-based services, I am very interested in > seeing SIP-based definitions for the support of a wide range of > conferencing tools ranging from voice/video to IM and mixtures that might > include a participant with only a phone and a fax machine. This is not to > say that I would reject other protocol bases for such service but rather > to say that we have a significant investment in SIP-based services and > would like to see them expanded in standard ways so as to encourage > interworking among parties offering such services. > > I leave it to the IESG and other interested parties to figure out how best > to achieve that objective. Perhaps a SIP-oriented WG is the appropriate > vehicle, recognizing that what ever procedures are invented, rooted in the > SIP system, might well have counterparts in other signalling enviroments > and could therefore be re-incarnated in them. Whether that would confer > interworking between the SIP and non-SIP systems is beyond my ability to > predict. > > Vint > > At 03:29 PM 8/19/2003 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote: > >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 > > Vint Cerf > SVP Architecture & Technology > MCI > 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 > Ashburn, VA 20147 > 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) > 703 886 0047 fax > vinton.g.cerf@mci.com > www.mci.com/cerfsup