RE: Items for agenda?

My own two cents on this:

I don't have any open issues/agenda items to propose for IMPP in San
Francisco.

The two issues that Mr. Crocker raises below (dependence of PIDF on IM and
gateway/relay nomenclature) have been discussed in some detail on the list
recently. I believed, since these threads had petered out, that we were
nearing consensus on these issues.

I will be inserting some more language into the core IMPP documents that
describes how we are using the term 'gateway', to make sure this is not a
point of confusion for any readers. I'm not sure why a disagreement about
the proper use of 'gateway' is indicative of a fundamental incoherence in
the remarkably unambitious mechanism those drafts depict.

As for the dependence of PIDF on IM, I've had a hard time finding text in
the PIDF draft which limits the applicability of presence information to
instant messaging. I did ask, in the previous thread, if anyone could point
out particular passages in which the PIDF draft displayed this bias (after
section 2, which describes the relationship of PIDF to RFC2778/RFC2779, and
granted that the legacy term 'CPIM' throughout will be updated). If there
are any such passages, I'd appreciate it if someone could bring them to the
attention of this mailing list. Otherwise, I suppose we should assume this
issue is closed.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 7:36 PM
> To: Dave Crocker
> Cc: IMPP Working Group
> Subject: 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]
> 
> 



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