I'm also concerned that conferencing semantics could lead to
basic interoperability problems that would be difficult to
surmount. If you can imagine XMPP in common usage for either
instant messaging or software agent communication (think 'bots')
and also SIMPLE in common usage for instant messaging, with
SIP already deployed for joining conferences, then we have to
plan for conferencing servers that can choose to support
XMPP and SIP/SIMPLE access without crippling either protocol
suite or requiring client rewrites.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:43 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu;
vinton(_dot_)g(_dot_)cerf(_at_)mci(_dot_)com;
mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us;
jon(_dot_)peterson(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; alan(_dot_)johnston(_at_)mci(_dot_)com;
rsparks(_at_)dynamicsoft(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)
It is high time the IETF should get its act together and
converge on
the one single multiparty (conferencing!) multimedia
session protocol:
SIP.
Why in the world should IETF bias a conferencing solution
toward the telephony providers? I mean, if SIP turned out to
be a good solution for everyone, fine. But the group
shouldn't assume a priori that SIP is the right direction.