Re: Controversial: Have SIMPLE reached is goal? Or is it an IETF failure?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/14/12 12:29 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I am aware of this work and the effort that happened before it but
> for some reason I got the impression that there was very low energy
> behind it.

Recently I have received a number of statements of interest in
SIP-XMPP interworking. Partly this is because of dual-stack clients
that use SIP for voice and video but XMPP for messaging and presence
(thus the "CUSAX" I-D).

> My impression was that the telcommunication operator community
> don't seem to care about it there is still the believe that a pure
> SIP-based approach will lead to success (and XMPP is not on their
> radar at all) and the XMPP community does not seem care about SIP.
> 
> Is this understanding wrong?

In my experience, some operators and enterprise software vendors are
indeed interested in SIMPLE<=>XMPP interworking for messaging and
presence because, even if they support SIMPLE for messaging and
presence, they want to provide gateways to XMPP so that they can offer
connections to contacts on large XMPP services like Google Talk. Thus
it is helpful for those folks to have specs showing how to translate
between SIMPLE and XMPP for addresses, presence, single messages,
one-to-one chat, and multi-user chat (the series of specs that I plan
to resurrect here soon).

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEUEARECAAYFAlB8HWoACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwlOQCgy9Ww59WJ56F1BfDH4BHi6/Jt
C04AmNwlidK0IXgjGDw8HYritvy+974=
=vkG/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----