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
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.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>