The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Architecture, Addresses, and Error Handling' (draft-ietf-stox-core-11.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-core/ 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 specifies the fondation underlying the bidirectional protocol mappings between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Because of the wide deployment of both technologies it is important to clearly define mappings between them for the sake of interworking. This document inaugurates a series of SIP-XMPP interworking specifications by defining the architectural assumptions underlying such mappings as well as the mapping of addresses and error conditions. 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? This document has been initially reviewed in the DISPATCH WG as per the RAI area process for new work. The STOX WG has been chartered as a result of the submission of this and other documents that aim to define specifications for interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) based systems. This document has been subjected to a number of thorough reviews initially in the DISPATCH WG and in the STOX WG after its creation. 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 Gonzalo Camarillo.
