RE: Requests on "de facto charter" discussion

Just to clarify my perspective on this, I didn't mean to suggest that
CPIM/CPP only selectively satisfies the requirements of RFC2779 - merely
that some requirements are requirements on the 'common formats', and some
requirements are requirements on the using protocols. Obviously, MSGFMT
should meet the requirements in RFC2779 section 4.1, which are specifically
tailored for a common format. The point is that other requirements are not
met by any feature of the CPIM/CPP common format work - instead, they have
to be met by a using protocol that instantiates the 'abstract' protocols
described in the core CPIM/CPP documents. Subscription authentication is a
good example of a requirement in RFC2779 that has no corresponding mechanism
in CPIM/CPP. We hadn't decided in IMPP that this requirement was wrong or
unfulfillable or something - instead, IMPP has just passed the buck to the
using protocols (APEX, SIMPLE, etc) to meet this requirement, as was the
case with many requirements. CPIM and CPP are not, themselves, instant
messaging or presence 'protocols'.

I am aware of no specific requirements from RFC2779 that we have rejected. I
don't mind adding the word "minimal" per request 2 below. As for request 3,
I'm not sure I would favor that precise wording. Perhaps something more
like: "This lack of an official direction encouraged participants to work
from differing assumptions and goals, which fueled recurring fundamental
disagreements and hampered consensus."

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 10:55 AM
> To: IMPP Working Group
> Subject: Requests on "de facto charter" discussion
> 
> 
> I am finding the responses to the proposed de facto charter 
> interesting.
> 
> I do have a number of specific requests below.
> 
> I was intrigued by the idea (apparently shared by several 
> people) that the
> WG had picked and chosen which 2779  requirements were 
> relevant.  I know we
> have had areas where various folks have claimed that some 
> requirement isn't
> met by our current docs, but I thought that those were 
> primarily individual
> differences of opinion or interpretation.  I couldn't 
> remember any places
> where the WG said that it could ignore some part of 2779.
> 
> If there are areas we could identify where the WG chose not 
> to be bound by
> 2779, we certainly need to be explicit about those and 
> explain them. So
> here's my first request:
> 
> REQUEST 1 is to send me (and the WG) any examples of those 
> areas. I'm asking
> for areas where the WG decided that it was OK not to meet the 
> requirement or
> that some requirement didn't make any sense.
> 
> Next, I am torn between a desire to accurately reflect 
> Marshall's concerns
> and an unwillingness to get caught between duelling memories among the
> people who participated in the Group of Nine.  I have already 
> spent too much
> time ducking that crossfire. ;-)
> 
> I'd propose adding the word "minimal" and hope that Marshall 
> might find this
> less misleading:
> 
> "The goal was to define some common information that would allow some
> minimal kind of interoperability of the different protocols, even if a
> single protocol was
> not possible."
> 
> I think this might also help with Adrian's suggestion that we 
> capture more
> of the "minimality discipline" we followed wrt what's in the formats,
> although perhaps that also needs to be identified explicitly.
> 
> I'd also be happy to substitute a more-abstract, less-loaded word than
> "interoperability" or "gatewaying" but I can't come up with 
> one.  "Some kind
> of interoperability" was intended to be fuzzy enough to cover 
> gatewaying.
> When I use words like "interaction" or "communication" instead of
> "interoperability", it seems to have lost all content.
> 
> So REQUEST 2 is to offer comments about this proposed change.
> 
> Finally, I think the concerns about legitimacy and technical 
> soundness will
> already be on everyone's minds, but I'd be happy to 
> underscore the concerns
> about those areas if the current wording isn't doing it 
> sufficiently. We
> could add a sentence after the one about the charter not 
> being updated to
> underscore the legitimacy issue.  For example, something like 
> "This failure
> meant that it was difficult to judge the soundness of 
> subsequent decisions.
> As a result, some parts of the community came to believe that IMPP was
> making arbitrary choices and not producing sound results."
> 
> REQUEST 3 is to offer comments about this proposed change.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> --Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> discussions, please]
> 
> 



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