Keith,
is it really IETF's job to legislate full employment for conference
service operators?
I find this very hard to understand. Are not service providers and network
managers the people supposed to bring these services into operation? Who
else has the operational credentials to define requirements for
conferencing?
If this was an emotional response, you need not reply.
Henry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:36 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu; rohan(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
Henry(_dot_)Sinnreich(_at_)mci(_dot_)com;
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)
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...
once again, an attempt to coerce IETF into preserving the status quo in
the market.
is it really IETF's job to legislate full employment for conference
service operators?