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

2012/10/17 Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>:
>>> 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.

Hi Peter, I think this thread is not about SIMPLE/XMPP
interoperability (which is good) but about SIMPLE/SIMPLE
interoperability.

With the current IETF SIMPLE specs is just impossible that two SIP
vendors that build generic SIP devices will interoperate for sharing a
simple addressbook by using a generic SIMPLE/XCAP server made by any
other vendor. And this is just because the RFC's don't define the
exact format of the XML files to use, so each vendor follows its own
interpretation. Said that, there is also no way for storing info other
than "dislplay-name" and "uri" per buddy so we DO NOT have a
"addressbook" in SIMPLE/XCAP, at least not in the IETF documents (and
I don't think that I should follow OMA/3GPP specs designed for telco
networks if I code a generic and open source SIP client for the open
Internet).

So, before attempting to interoperate with XMPP I think SIP should be
able to interoperate with itself in a generic IP network (out of
walled gardens in which vendors have full control over servers and
clients, and can design their required extra layers on top of the IETF
specs to complete the puzzle).


Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple