Re: "De facto charter" proposed text

It seems as though many standards are subject to feature overload which can
result in the creation of a simpler standard. An example is xml-rpc
(http://www.xml-rpc.org/) as a result of soap's increasing complexity. Many
standards have remained uncluttered by creating mechnisms to extend the
protocol (eg. SMTP & MIME).

Conan Callen
Windowpane

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email protected]>
To: "'Dave Crocker'" <[email protected]>; "Thanos Diacakis"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Adrian Bateman" <[email protected]>; "'Mark Day'" <[email protected]>;
"'IMPP Working Group'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: "De facto charter" proposed text



Just as a general comment on this whole line of inquiry, I don't think CPIM
is supposed to instantiate the RFC2778/RFC2779 architecture/requirements in
their entirety. It is a set of tools that can be used by a protocol (like
APEX, SIMPLE, etc) which instantiates RFC2779. It is the using protocol, not
CPIM, that is supposed to be fully compliant with these RFCs - the CPIM
tools just allow various using protocols to be compliant in an interoperable
manner. At least, that was my understanding.

Consequently, I don't think we're under any obligation to show a one-to-one
correspondence between RFC2779 requirements and CPIM features. CPIM is not
itself an instant messaging protocol - it is an abstract model for such
protocols and a pair of formats that might be carried by such protocols.

Finally, I would comment that if there is doubt in our minds as to whether
or not CPIM exactly satisfies the requirements of RFC2779, then satisfaction
of those requirements could hardly be part of the "de facto" charter,
although it may be a part of an ideal charter that our WG process didn't
happen to follow. If our last call and evaluation process for CPIM did not
involve this sort of requirement-to-feature mapping, then we probably
shouldn't convey that impression in our 20-20 hindsight charter.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:54 PM
> To: Thanos Diacakis
> Cc: Adrian Bateman; 'Mark Day'; 'IMPP Working Group'
> Subject: Re: "De facto charter" proposed text
>
>
> Thanos,
>
> TD> OK, but we need to be careful here, because although what
> he have defined is
> TD> in 2778/9, there are also requirements in 2778/9 that we
> have not provided
> TD> for, and I believe the consensus is that we shouldn't
> provide for everything
> TD> in there.
> so, that adds the need for explaining why some requirements
> were carried
> forward and others were not.
>
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
>
>
>
>
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical
> discussions, please]
>
>



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






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