RE: Loops (RE: CPIM changes)

> ps.  has anyone bothered to worry how the end-to-end requirements
> impact our
> ability to gateway to existing im and presence services?  some of
> them are a
> tad too large to ignore...

It has been a long-standing principle of IMPP, endorsed by the ADs, that the
goal of the WG is to produce a sound architecture for presence and instant
messaging on the Internet, not to provide for easy upgrades from vendor X or
vendor Y.

Given that our most prominent vendors X and Y compete ferociously in this
space and others, any other approach would doom us to endless
techno-political wrangling as each tried to gain advantage over the other.

It would be great to understand the impact of our design choices on those
deployed services, but to date we have not had a lot of luck in getting
credible analysis. The problem is partly that because of the inter-vendor
rivalry, we usually learn nothing from "the inside."  And on the rare
occasions when information has been made available, everything appears to
have been spun or filtered so as to conform to that week's marketing
position.

--Mark




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]