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

Hi Olle,

(sorry if this has been answered down the thread, I'm catching up)

On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:

> 
> 14 okt 2012 kl. 08:29 skrev Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>:
> 
>> 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.
> There are many clients around that support both XMPP and SIP and there used to be very few clients supporting SIMPLE, so the requirements for interoperability on protocol level has not been huge. 
> 
> Today we have more clients supporting SIMPLE, so there may be a new level of interest.
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> Which may not be a bad thing. Being sarcastic, the interest in SIP from the operator community has given SIP a lot of ISDN features that XMPP luckily doesn't have... ;-)
> 
> The architecture is fundamentally different. In XMPP, the server forwards XMPP messages called stanzas, but doesn't keep or aggregate any status. In SIMPLE, the server aggregates presence states and we can ask the server about an entitys current status and change it. This lead to some interoperability challenges, like the SIP subscribe query with expires:0. A jabber server can't answer that.

That particular example, SUBSCRIBE with expires 0, can be seen as a 'presence probe', aka 'give me the last known state' and XMPP can do this with a presence stanza of type 'probe'.

> 
>> 
>> Is this understanding wrong?
> The interesting thing with XMPP is that it powers a lot of applications that you don't see as classical IM or presence, with buddy lists. The XMPP developer meetings are full with cool developers presenting really interesting projects powered by XMPP. So you might have applications in the telecom world that build on XMPP, but very few people know about it. 
> 
> XMPP did one thing right that SIP did not. There are two RFCs - one for the core protocol and one for the first application - IM and presence. SIP could have benefited from one RFC for the core protocol and a separate for "telephony". 
> 
> /O
>> 
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>> 
>> On 10/14/2012 03:12 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> On 10/13/12 11:29 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The interworking between SIP-based voice and XMPP text messaging
>>>> is not standardized either. Does anyone have any information?
>>> 
>>> It's funny you should ask. Emil Ivov, Enrico Marocco, and I have been
>>> working on that a bit here:
>>> 
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax/
>>> 
>>> I am also planning to soon resurrect the entire series of documents I
>>> had underway several years ago, draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-* (core, IM,
>>> presence, etc.).
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>> 
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAlB6A3gACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzh+wCg4lajuJTMDRwd0gBZNXaPk18S
>>> Ls4AoIaiLEL1q75NM09qISSDHUdUhSD4
>>> =NDw2
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simple mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects