Re: Focusing on SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability

With.

2.


On Oct 17, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Roy, Radhika R CIV (US) wrote:

> Folks:
> 
> I do not know which scenarios for SIMPLE-XMPP interworking are taken into
> account:
> 
> 1. SIMPLE-XMPP without integration with audio and/or video?
> 
> 2. SIP/SIMPLE-XMPP with integration with audio and/or video?
> 
> Scenario 1 may be considered for an historical reason because XMPP came
> first.
> 
> Scenario 2 will not be useful from practical point of view because SIP for
> audio/video is firmly established in the market place and addition of
> SIMPLE/Chat/IM does not cost anything. Interworking GW is unacceptable from
> scalability and security point of view.
> 
> BR/Radhika
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Olle E. Johansson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:47 PM
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: Adrian Georgescu; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Focusing on SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability
> 
> 
> 17 okt 2012 kl. 20:56 skrev Mary Barnes <[email protected]>:
> 
> 
> 	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,
> Thanks for your response. While it feels strange to suggest a focus on
> SIMPLE-to-SIMPLE interoperability, something that should have been there
> before, I think that's exactly what we need. 
> 
> All others following this list:
> 
> Please add your thoughts, possibly details (like Iñaki, Saul and Adrian have
> done) in mail to this mailing list. With that information, we can try to put
> together a document on "Issues in SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability" that can
> be the platform for continued work to solve issues. Pour it out to the mail
> archives!
> 
> Maybe we should try to define "SIMPLE" here. What I meant in the start of
> this discussion was a plaform using SIP "presence" event package, using XCAP
> for buddy lists and presence rules. (I might have missed something, so
> please add).  I would add that we should limit the definition to documents
> published by the IETF as RFCs in order to stay in focus. If there are things
> clearly missing in the RFCs, point this out clearly.
> 
> If you've missed the previous detailed postings in this thread, they're
> available in the mail archive for you to catch up.
> 
> Let's go.
> 
> /O
> 
> 
> 
> 	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
> <blockedhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple> 
> 		
> 
> 
>