SIP-TO-XMPP
charter-ietf-stox-01
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Martin Stiemerling)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-05-21 for -00-00)
Unknown
This seems like very worthwhile effort. It looks like pretty short-term work: I might like to see the proposed schedule. Also, the preamble talks about need to map in both directions, but this working group is only addressing one direction, yes? Is there any plan for xmpp-to-sip mapping?
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-05-22 for -00-00)
Unknown
I think this WG should be kept on a *very* tight and short timeline. Most of the work is (AFAICT) already mostly baked.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-05-21 for -00-00)
Unknown
I was glad to see this work taking place, and I'm glad to see it coming into an IETF working group.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-30 for -00-00)
Unknown
echo stephens comment
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-30 for -00-00)
Unknown
Should the charter be explicit about not accepting other drafts as competing proposals? It sounds like the drafts are pretty baked but what if somebody shows up with a competing proposal (or is that just not going to happen)?
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-30 for -00-00)
Unknown
Question: how does this impact on e2e security? Presumably it entirely breaks it. (Not that e2e security really exists for either xmpp or simple, but I've not read these drafts.) Would it be reasonable to ask that the WG consider how this work impacts on in-work (the xmpp wg are doing work on e2e) or future e2e security mechanisms and in the event that there is no working solution for that (which is probable I guess) that the WG consider how that fact ought be handled?