[from the charter text]
Initially this combination of protocols will be specified with respect
to session setup with SIP. The solutions developed in XCON will not
preclude operation with other signaling protocols; however it is
anticipated that the use of other protocols would require modifications
which are out of scope for this working group.
Regarding the name 'xcon' versus something like 'sipxcon', as the paragraph
above states, XCON does not want to preclude the possibility that its
mechanisms will work with other signaling protocols. It's possible that a
mechanism for conference control designed with SIP in mind could have some
applicability to other protocols (MGCP and Megaco come to mind - more likely
than not, anything SDP-based - but perhaps even non-IETF protocols like
H.323, and so on). In that sense I think the work really is somewhat more
generic than SIP - the group will not go out of its way to ensure its
applicability elsewhere, but the work isn't so tightly-coupled to SIP that
applicability in the rough neighborhood is impossible or even vastly
unlikely.
As far as I can tell, the paragraph above strikes the right balance, and
doesn't make unreasonable or ambitious claims about applicability. Perhaps
that paragraph's wording could be improved, or it could be placed more
prominently in the charter, or something (suggestions welcome). But I can't
imagine the charter text could be construed to imply that protocols like,
for example, XMPP would be bound or even encouraged to support the results
of XCON.
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Rose [mailto:mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:29 PM
To: Peterson, Jon
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)
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