Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-xcon-framework (A Framework for Centralized Conferencing) to Proposed Standard

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:21:23 -0400

I'd like to draw the attention of the IETF community to this document.
It seems hugely complex.  I'd like to ask those not involved in the
xcon working group to take time to read it and to consider whether
this complexity is necessary.

I'd particularly like to ask people to consider section 9.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

 -0400
From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:21:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-xcon-framework (A Framework for
	Centralized Conferencing) to Proposed Standard

I'd like to draw the attention of the IETF community to this document.
It seems hugely complex.  I'd like to ask those not involved in the
xcon working group to take time to read it and to consider whether
this complexity is necessary.

I'd particularly like to ask people to consider section 9.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:49:42 -0700

>I'd particularly like to ask people to consider section 9.

Quoting Section 9:

   "The SIP Conferencing Framework [8] provides an overview of a wide
    range of centralized conferencing solutions known today in the
    conferencing industry.  The document introduces a terminology and
    logical entities in order to systemize the overview and to show the
    common core of many of these systems."

This draft redefines some of the terminology defined in the SIP 
Conferencing Framework.  It would be better to use the same 
terminology to show a common core.

Is there a reason why this draft should be on "Standards Track"?

Regards,
-sm