Subject: [Stox] Protocol Action: 'Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-11.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:24:29 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
   Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat'
  (draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-11.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ben Campbell and Alissa Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.

This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of instant 
messages in the context of a multiparty chat session among users of the Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP) and users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). 
Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based Message Session 
Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat (MUC) extension.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
  rough?

The document has been subjected to a number of reviews in the STOX WG. Thorough 
reviews have also been made by experts in XMPP and SIP areas in the last few months 
and the document has been updated to address all raised issues and concerns. There 
were no controversial points regarding it.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?

There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the 
specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). 
Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the 
discussions in the WG.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Alissa 
Cooper.