A Group Text Chat Purpose for Conference and Service URIs in the SIP Event Package for Conference State
RFC 7106

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-20 for -03)
No email
send info
I notice the following fragment in a couple of places:

<subject>Agenda: This sprint's goals</subject>

Given that Sprint is a service provider in this sector, it would be better to pick a neutral name.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25 for -03)
No email
send info
I did have one question, which you might consider along with any other comments you receive during the evaluation process.

I'm reading (quickly) this specification plus RFC 4575 taken together as saying that a conference description with two grouptextchat purposes would be valid, so that a conference can advertise both an XMPP URI and an SIP URI with grouptextchat purpose, for instance.

If that's valid, is there any expectation that if I type something into one of these group chats, it would show up for people in another chat advertised in the same conference description?

You could also tell me that everyone uses XMPP for group chats, so this isn't an interesting question, of course :-)

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25 for -03)
No email
send info
I would need someone more clueful than I to pronounce on this, but don't we have better things to include in an example than:
<uri>http://sharepoint/salesgroup/</uri>

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25 for -03)
No email
send info
Did the *content* of this document get any review at all in the IETF? I know that DISPATCH looked at it, but that's a "where should this be handled" review rather than a content review. I see no discussion of it on the IETF list. Is this actually an IETF consensus document? (The general subject is a current topic of conversation between the IAB and IESG, so shedding some light on this case might prove useful. It should not stop publication of this document.)

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-11-29)
No email
send info
Thanks for dealing with my discuss points.