RE: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt syntax

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> It's just fine that requirements for presence drove the 
> decision towards XML.  What is peculiar is that the
> group then rejected using the same parser for messaging.

I think you have the history backwards.

MSGFMT was basically agreed upon before the decision
for presence was made. Check the minutes for IMPP
from IETF 50; there's a discussion along the lines
of, "Should presence use MSGFMT format, or an XML
format?"

It was at *that* point that requirements drove the group
to use a presence format that supported nesting.

/a



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