RE: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)

Leaving the SIP-XMPP discussion aside (nobody will change their mind anyway)
a matter of concern is the 100% dominance of protocol experts in this
discussion and no real participation from conference service operators and
conference platform vendors. This raises several flags...

As a participant in developing IP conference services, I have seen the
challenge of integrating IP conference technology with AAA (OSS) and with
operator support services.

In this light, I believe we need to start with generic requirements for XCON
target systems (what should they be anyway?) and examine/compare the
candidate protocols later. Such a document SHOULD be co-authored by (1)
conferencing services providers first and (2) by conferencing platform
vendors, second.

Could we shift this debate from protocols to requirements?

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:rohan(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:55 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: 'vinton g. cerf'; 'Marshall Rose'; 'Peterson, Jon'; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Alan Johnston; Robert Sparks
Subject: Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)

Greetings.

Henry, If we wanted to do a SIP-only conferencing solution, we would
have left this work in SIPPING.  However we discovered that several of
the problems we were trying to solve were applicable to non-SIP
signaled conferences (including mixed protocol conferences).  We also
wanted to get wider input from the IETF community since there is a lot
of previous work that's gone on. Just like RTP/RTCP streams are setup
by SIP, H.323, MGCP, Megaco, and even proprietary signaling protocols,
there is no reason that a common approach for conference policy,
rosters, inter-conference media manipulation, and floor control can't
be used by vendors which use any signaling protocol.  (I will remind
you that, for example, my company has an installed base of over 2
million phones which are using a proprietary protocol.)  Please rest
assured however that SIPPING would make sure that any SIP-specific
pieces get done in SIPPING in a way that works with the output of XCON.

As for Marshall's comments: there is certainly nothing nefarious about
having a large body of source work when trying to start a Working Group
(I cite XMPP as a recent example). What is important is for folks to
focus on the *charter text* and the desired output, rather than make
assumptions about the intent of those contributors. As for his
suggestion that a generic conferencing working group should live in
APPS instead of TSV, please consider that MMUSIC was the original host
for conferencing work in IETF and therefore there is some precedent for
the work to happen in TSV.  I am fine with either, but I believe this
issue was already worked out among Ted, Ned, Allison, and Jon.
Marshall, if there is something specific that you don't like about the
charter as a generic conferencing working group, please propose
alternate rewording.

thanks,
-rohan
co-chair SIP and SIPPING WGs

On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 06:33 AM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:

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
centralized conferencing.

Thanks,

Henry Sinnreich
MCI

-----Original Message-----
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
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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
predict.

Vint

 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

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


Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax
vinton(_dot_)g(_dot_)cerf(_at_)mci(_dot_)com
www.mci.com/cerfsup