Re: Focusing on SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability

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>

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