ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)

2003-08-21 10:59:59
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