RE: Let's fix THE PROBLEM

An event notification BOF was held at IETF42 in Chicago, August 1998. See
the "notify" BOF report in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/index.html.
There might have been previous similar efforts, but that's the only one I
personally know of.  The BOF concluded without a WG being set up.

Trying to do a new WG *might* be a fine idea if you are aware of this
previous history and take at least some account of it.  I don't think you
particularly need the folks in XMPP and SIMPLE to agree -- indeed it seems
that part of your argument is that those WGs are not solving the right
problem, so they might be disinclined to support your approach.
Nevertheless, you might be able to get a critical mass within the IETF as a
whole. But you would want to be able to explain why this is a good idea now
even though it was judged to be unsuitable 5 years ago.

(I know that times change, but it would be useful to explain at least
approximately *how* times have changed so that this is now a
better/different idea).

--Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Shane Dempsey
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:06 PM
> To: Bob Wyman; 'Rob Batchelder'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Let's fix THE PROBLEM
>
>
> Hi Bob, all,
> That was my point exactly. The 'presence' applications
> that are often discussed more concerned with reuse of a
> transport/communications mechanism than with the idea of presence
> itself. A
> more generic events mechanism is required.
>
> So there's at least 3 members on this list that are in broad
> agreement that
> the current situation is not good and is probably the frustrating the
> evolution of both true presence-based services and their underyling
> communications mechanisms.
>
> We need some solutions.  We can propose a new working group
> alright  but if
> there isn't substantial support from both SIMPLE & XMPP working
> groups there
> doesn't seem much point.
>
> Does that support exist?
>
> regards,
>
>     ...shane
>
>
>
> Bob Wyman wrote:
>
> > > Arguably my toaster has as much right to produce
> > > presence information as I do
> > But, you will want more from your toaster than just "presence"
> > information! It is nice to know that the thing exists, however, you
> > probably would like to know what it is doing, what its current
> > temperature is, when it starts to process a new piece of toast, and
> > you'd like to be alerted whenever an internal sensor detects a
> > significant change in state. You could pump all this over some
> > "presence" system, but the reality is that little of this data is really
> > "presence" related. What you should have is a PubSub transport layer
> > that allows the toaster to send out messages that are of type "Presence"
> > or of type "Toaster Status". These are two types of message that use the
> > same PubSub transport layer (i.e. Subscribe, Publish, Notify, Watch,
> > etc...)
> > Many of the "presence" applications that I hear about (other
> > than IM buddy lists) appear to involve exploiting the Presence protocol
> > to send information that isn't really "presence" related but would be
> > better handled by a PubSub protocol. What is happening is that people
> > are recognizing that the presence protocols are likely to be widely
> > disseminated and they are trying to figure out how to exploit these
> > implementations as transports for other applications. i.e. Presence,
> > which should be something that lives at the presentation layer, is being
> > treated as a transport layer protocol. This is wrong.
> >
> > bob wyman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical
> discussions, please]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
>
>




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