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

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/17/12 7:14 AM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > I keep this on the mailing list, hope you do not mind.
> >
> > On Oct 17, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Brian McColgan wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> It seems however IETF is plowing toward an XMPP/SIP-SIMPLE
> >> inter-work solution.  Not sure what that will achieve.
>
> I don't know whether the IETF is plowing toward an interwork solution.
> All I know is that vendors and service providers who deploy
> SIMPLE-based systems often want to enable their users to communicate
> with users of XMPP-based systems (share presence, chat one-to-one,
> join chatrooms). If we define protocol mappings, such gateways will be
> easier to build and will work in more consistent ways. That seems like
> a good thing.
>
[MB] I totally agree! [/MB]

>
> 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/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlB+wToACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx1yACcDvKRP2BYGbejcKaASJOATguH
> hncAoOW4PFwPX1AMvd8NM+cjofprjuH9
> =xkZl
> -----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