Re: Should SIMPLE be rechartered, replaced, closed, or what?

[email protected] wrote on 10/18/2012 01:15:20 PM:

> From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]>
> To: Ben Campbell <[email protected]>, 
> Cc: Mary Barnes <[email protected]>, Simple WG 
> <[email protected]>, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
> Date: 10/18/2012 01:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Should SIMPLE be rechartered, replaced, closed, or 
what?
> Sent by: [email protected]
> 
> 2012/10/16 Ben Campbell <[email protected]>:
> > It seems like there are really at least two things under discussion on 
the
> > list: SIMPLE/XMPP inter working, and whether work is needed on SIMPLE 
itself
> > in order to facilitate interoperable implementations.
> 
> Hi Ben, some others as me propose a third vision:
> 
> Trying to revive SIMPLE for open environments (i.e. Internet) is a
> no-go given the complexity of the existing specs. IMHO technical
> details about this realitity have been already given during the last
> mail threads, including the number of lines of high level programming
> code for building all the SIMPLE specs (more than 15000, and the
> result is something non interoperable with any other client or server
> implementation).
> 
> A new effort 100% from scratch makes more sense for me (just my
> opinion). Regards.
> 
> -- 
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <[email protected]>
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

A different effort may be considered which is what will make
XMPP acceptable as an extension to SIP based systems.

This means not modifying SIMPLE but using XMPP as the
presence/IM protocol for SIP.

Usage of SIP AOR was mentioned before as an example.

thanks
avshalom

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