RE: Items for agenda?

> I believe, however, that a careful review of
> the state of the documents will show one or more needing considerable
> work.

I'm sure that the documents could be reviewed further, but my personal sense
is that we are at or beyond the point of diminishing returns.  I don't want
IMPP to turn into one of those zombie WGs that can't finish its documents
because no-one reads anything any more.

> At the least, the recent discussion about the dependence the presence
> documents have on IM shows that there needs to be more thought and more
> complete specification of Presence as a service for multiple
> environments, of which IM is only one.

I don't believe there is any real dependence on IM, but there is some
editorial cleanup required on phrases that left that impression.  I didn't
see that as being any different in character or complexity than some of the
other editorial issues identified (fractured sentences, misplaced
definitions, etc.).

> In addition the continuing confusion about the nature of both IM and
> Presence services, as being gatewayed vs. homogeneous and end-to-end
> also highlights a very basic lack of coherence to the work.

Perhaps.  But is that fixable by meeting in San Francisco?  That's what we
need to know for requesting a slot at the IETF.  Can you give us a sense of
what we would discuss and/or do about this topic if it were on the agenda?

--Mark




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