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

18 okt 2012 kl. 16:14 skrev Ben Campbell <[email protected]>:

> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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.

Thanks for the clarification, Ben. I was parsing the text of the charter myself, as I wasn't involved in the background work back then... 

For me, I can't even get proper presence notifications across the set of implementations I have access to. That's why I want as many as possible to come to SIPit so we can test and see where we are. After my initial mail there seems to be consensus on issues with PIDF parsing for presence and then on a bit more, but not too advanced level, a lack of interoperability in regards to server-based buddy-lists. 

"deployment cluster" was nicely put :-) Isolated island would be a politically incorrect, but correct name...

/O