Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, stox mailing list <email@example.com>, stox chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: 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) 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.