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

On 10/17/12 2:56 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> 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).

I pretty much agree with Mary.
I suspect the primary reason for simple-simple interop problems is lack 
of a sufficient number of implementations motivated to make interop 
work. (But I say that without data, so I'll be happy to be corrected on 
this.) It would surprise me if it had all magically interoperated 
without difficulty without anyone finding and reporting problems, and 
some work to sort them out. And I haven't heard of that, except for the 
most recent discussion.

Perhaps this is because XMPP took a large part of the market, and the 
pieces it didn't get, that went with simple, are mostly walled gardens. 
(Maybe just a single walled garden.)

Personally I never cared very much about the details of the simple 
presence and IM. What mattered to me was that there be a unified 
addressing and session setup mechanism that could mix and match IM with 
audio and video. If we could have used XMPP as a sip media stream I 
would have been happy. And if we could have used XMPP presence with sip 
AORs that would have been ok too.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Mary.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Olle E. Johansson <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>     17 okt 2012 kl. 15:14 skrev Adrian Georgescu <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>