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

On 10/17/12 4:42 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2012, at 10:29 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Your suspicion is the negation of everything hat was written and said on this list in the last couple of days.
> People making open source implementation for these SIMPLE standards and submitting feedback to this list lack motivation?
> How can you write such a careless thing?

This discussion comes after many years during which XMPP worked out its 
interop issues, and there was little discussion of interop issues with 
simple.

It is good that now there seems to be a critical mass to address the issue.

>> (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.
>
> Well, if you do not care, why do you dare debate people who do care?

IMO it would have been better if we had found a way to converge simple 
and xmpp long ago. But we didn't, and now we have both. And we get the 
issues that arise from that.

I am not debating you about the problems.

>> 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.
>
> As you do not care, please stay out of this discussion and let people who do care,  discuss it.
>
> Stop interfering with things you do not care about when others spend their time writing software code for it.

In what way have I "interfered"? I'm interested in seeing that the 
problems are identified and addressed.

At the end of the day, I just want to be able to put anybody into my 
buddy list, regardless of what protocol they use, and be able to 
establish sessions with them that can use any combination of voice, 
video, and IM that seems useful at the time.

	Thanks,
	Paul