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

I do not see the SIMPLE work being done again or fixed to the level that 
it will interoperate.
There is too much legacy and complexity including standardisation by other 
organizations that will
have to be considered.

On the other hand, having a way to add presence and IM to SIP while using 
an existing protocol that is proven to interoperate may be the way 
forward.
It may be that the MSRP work is solid enough so IM is covered but it does 
not seem that it is the state for presence.

Thanks
--Avshalom




From:   Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]>
To:     Avshalom Houri/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, 
Cc:     Ben Campbell <[email protected]>, Mary Barnes 
<[email protected]>, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>, Simple 
WG <[email protected]>
Date:   10/18/2012 02:25 PM
Subject:        Re: [Simple] Should SIMPLE be rechartered, replaced, 
closed, or what?



2012/10/18 Avshalom Houri <[email protected]>:
> 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.

XMPP is not the panacea. It uses two different mechanisms for presence:

- Basic presence distribution.
- Subscription/notification for advanced presence (avatar and so).

Interoperability becomes hard for XMPP clients when implementing
something else than basic presence exchange. I don't understand why
XMPP should be the only way to go (for SIP).

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email protected]>

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