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

On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> 
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 8:39 AM, "Olle E. Johansson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> If we conclude that we have no interoperability, the SIMPLE wg hasn't lived up to the goal of the charter.
> 
> Before you can draw that conclusion, you have to define what level of interoperability is intended. For example:
> 
> 1) Can one SIMPLE implementation exchange presence and IMs with another implementation?

This works.

> 2) Can you mix and match components of one "deployment cluster" with another? (For example, the ongoing discussion about being able to get your address book from any client.)

This does not.

Adrian


> 1 was a clear goal of SIMPLE. I'm not sure you would have gotten consensus on 2 as a requirement when that charter was written.
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>