I think the XCON folks were trying to be inclusive in their charter
development but frankly I don't think its necessary. The IETF now has three
SIP related WG's operating well and producing good work and the scope of
the XCON proposal IMHO should be directed at SIP specifically. Its a
complex issue, there is a real problem statement and a focused WG could
tackle the problem head on and deliver results. This was the direction we
took with SIPPING for the specific IM problem and its what we need to do
with SIP Conferencing.
richard - unfortunately, this isn't what the proposed charter says or
intends.
i'll repeat what i've said twice before, but i'll use different words:
if the sip folks want to have a working group to work on
sip-specific conferencing, fine. we can judge the charter on its
merits in the context of sip.
the xmpp folks have a workable, deployed solution in the
conferencing space. if they decide to take this work to the ietf,
then that should also be accorded the same courtesy in being judged
on its merits in the context of xmpp.
the proposed charter (and jon's clarifications) have a considerably
larger scope than doing sip-specific conferencing. further, it is
disingenuous to say that other perspectives will be considered,
because, to paraphrase sinnreich: "there is but one god, and it's
name is sip".
so, as much as i enjoy these little skirmishes, i repeat my call for
peace:
tailor the proposed charter so that it limits itself to sip-specific
conference, and no one outside of the sip community will much care...
/mtr