[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)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Mon, 13 April 2015 18:24 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150413182429.22821.68892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:24:29 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/mvlH9S9AWuILYsv1a-9QqqZa0Fw>
Cc: stox mailing list <stox@ietf.org>, stox chair <stox-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
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)

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.

[Stox] Protocol Action: 'Interworking between the… The IESG