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
From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:vinton(_dot_)g(_dot_)cerf(_at_)mci(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:39 AM
To: Marshall Rose; Peterson, Jon
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
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
that. however, the charter for that working group should not imply that
scope of the working group is anything beyond sip.
a reasonable person reading the charter would conclude that the scope of
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
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-
working group can probably comfortably reside in either.
SVP Architecture & Technology
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax