Jon, Perhaps it will help to consider the proposed text from the vantage point of someone who is not already familiar with SIP and SIP history. It might also help to consider how concrete (or not) the proposed language is: PJ> [from the charter text] >> Initially this combination of protocols will be specified with respect >> to session setup with SIP. This says that SIP provides a basis, but there is no indication of what this means. There is no operationally or technically objective meaning to "specified with respect to". It could mean absolutely anything. So the text is conceptual, rather than concrete. That is, it states a philosophical focus on SIP, but nothing more. In terms of "contract" language, it has no content that can be enforced. The one possible use of this sentence is to provide a basis for excluding non-SIP work. >> The solutions developed in XCON will not >> preclude operation with other signaling protocols; Again, this is a statement of philosophy that has no operational or technical meat to it. In the abstract, yes, one can do things to preclude operation with other signalling protocols, but there is no well-established set of design actions that folks will know about, for creating such "preclusion". Further, it is pretty darn rare to have a working group do anything to "preclude" actions outside of the working group scope. In fact there is a track record of design work that says the actual outcome of the working group will be the opposite of what the charter text declares: Absent careful attention to other uses, a design tends to be workable only for the envisioned scenario. >> however it is >> anticipated that the use of other protocols would require modifications >> which are out of scope for this working group. In other words, this is work that is only for SIP. PJ> Regarding the name 'xcon' versus something like 'sipxcon', as the paragraph PJ> above states, XCON does not want to preclude the possibility that its PJ> mechanisms will work with other signaling protocols. Actually, yes it does. The SIP environment is the only scope of this work. Unless the charter states what will be done to *ensure* that other signalling environments can be supported, the odds are quite high that none will be possible. PJ> It's possible that a mechanism for conference control designed with PJ> SIP in mind could have some applicability to other protocols Unfortunately, this sort of statement has no effect. Anything is "possible". So the text is just commentary about the unknown future. On the average, it has no place in a charter, because it says nothing about what what the working group will or will not do. Yet that is the purpose of a charter. 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>