ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)

2003-08-14 15:02:29
Jon,

PJ> So while one might be
PJ> concerned by the fact that XCON is SIP-specific, I don't believe the charter
PJ> is especially disingenuous about that.

On the other hand, it declares a statement of intended design constraint
(being sip oriented) but provides no indication of what that means or
why it is being chosen. As such, it is not possible to evaluate that
choice.

Given that a working group charter is a contract for work to be done,
the contract needs to specify its constraints in a way that provides
helpful detail.


PJ> As to why this proposed WG is more or less SIP-specific, the charter arises
PJ> from a set of framework, requirements and mechanism documents that were
PJ> proposed in SIPPING.

Working groups that are chartered with documented constraints are
expected to cite those documents. If there is a body of prior work, on
which this working group is being offered as a continuation, then a
person reading the charter needs to be able to review that work.

Otherwise it is very difficult for a public review of the charter to be
based on anything substantial.

If there is no documentation for the constraints, then there is no
substantial basis for imposing them, other than perhaps citing some
concerns or perspectives.


d/
--
 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>