Re: Focusing on SIMPLE-SIMPLE interoperability

On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> On 10/17/12 4:29 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> You are analyzing things in terms of one to one dialogs.
> 
> Yes for IM, no for presence. I fully realize that the topology that must be maintained for presence is different, and more complex.
> 
>> This is a bit wrong, and don't take this personally.
>> 
>> Presence requires a multiple set of dialogs between each end-point and the Presence Agent and between themselves on a logical level.
>> 
>> You are right that the interop issue are very different but your juxtaposed the actors.
>> 
>> Presence is the most complicated part of it all, it involves at least twelve of such dialogs when I do a napkin drawing. Which is at least one order of magnitude more complicated then doing a MSRP file transfer or an RTP video session.
> 
> I don't know where you get the number 12. It seems obvious that the number will vary based on the buddy graph, the the partitioning of the principals among servers. No doubt it will turn out to be 12 in *some* case, but I don't see how that tells us anything.
> 
> Nevertheless it can be complex. The whole scaling analysis thing demonstrated that. The potential to give different authorization to each of your buddies makes it very difficult to come up with a scalable design.

Again, can we forget about scalability for a second.  Is a different topic.

The issue is the interoperability for presence flows between two clients from two different vendors on the same account on the same server.

The people concerned, myself included,  want to find a solution for how to make two SIP clients work under the same SIP account for presence. 

Adrian

> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>> Adrian
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/17/12 3:47 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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!
>>> 
>>> ISTM that SIMPLE has two clearly separate parts: presence and IM.
>>> The interop issues for the two are very different. I think most of the issues are wrt presence. This applies to both simple-simple and simple-xmpp.
>>> 
>>> The one point where there is commonality is around the URIs - sip: vs. xmpp:.
>>> 
>>> For instance, for simple-xmpp interop for ecrit, I think only the IM part is critical, and that should be the easier part.
>>> 
>>> 	Thanks,
>>> 	Paul
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Simple mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>

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