--On 22. august 2003 11:15 -0500 Henry Sinnreich <Henry(_dot_)Sinnreich(_at_)mci(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I certainly don't share that assumption. Then again, I don't share the
assumption that any central coordinating authority is needed to set up
conferencing services.
This is an interesting point. The XCON WG is about _Centralized_
conferencing platforms. Who does operate such centralized systems?
to use a specific example....
in the case of something like the IESG teleconference, I would expect the
IETF secretariat to be in control of the conference, and that all
participants are able to securely assert identities that the secretariat
can verify.
The protocols should make no assumptions on whether the programs executing
the conference authority run on machines operated by the secretariat, AT&T
or a service provider in rural India, and should make no assumptions on
whether the trust is rooted in Verisign or psg.com, or is brokered through
a mechanism that doesn't need a single root for its trust mechanism.
If "centralized conference control" doesn't mean that anyone with the
required resources can be a center, I think we're on a very wrong path.
My opinion, of course.
Harald