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

I agree it's silliness that SIMPLE implementations have interop issues
right now.  I think the SIP-XMPP is further along that SIMPLE-SIMPLE.  I
think that's because XMPP was done before SIMPLE - it's a matter of a
market decisions -i.e, jabber was available way before SIMPLE.  However, it
now seems that there are some deployments (e.g., Hannes' emergency services
scenario) that require SIMPLE-SIMPLE. I think we might be able to learn
from the SIP-XMPP - i.e., at least try to get the SIMPLE-SIMPLE to work for
the lowest common denominator situations.  I think the starting point for
the latter is to identify the current set of interop issues and determine
whether it's due to gaps in the specs or implementation decisions (as Olle
suggested at the beginning of this thread).

Mary.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> 17 okt 2012 kl. 15:14 skrev Adrian Georgescu <[email protected]>:
>
> >> It seems however IETF is plowing toward an XMPP/SIP-SIMPLE inter-work
> solution.  Not sure what that will achieve.
>
> That's fine, but a separate project. If the only way we can get
> interoperability between SIMPLE implentations is using XMPP between them,
> that feels like a stupid solution to me. I do want to be able to use SIMPLE
> to communicate with other SIMPLE implementations. I want to be able to use
> one SIMPLE client from one vendor on my smartphone and share the address
> book/buddy list and presence ruleset with my other SIMPLE client on the
> desktop.
>
> That's what customers expect. And that's not where we are today with the
> IETF specs, and if I parse right, maybe not with the inclusion of the 3rd
> party OMA specs.
>
> /O
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple