Re: SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and… (new subject)

Hi Ben,

On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> (as individual)
> =

> On Nov 2, 2012, at 7:27 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> wrote:
> =

>>> I'd love to see a better model endorsed by SIMPLE and then happily impl=
ement it. I think we do share this goal :-)
>> =

>> Sure we agree here. The key is: reusing SIMPLE/XCAP specs? or making
>> something better from scratch (after learning from current SIMPLE/XMPP
>> specs)?
> =

> Do you really believe nothing is salvageable? For example, would you jett=
ison all of the below?
> =

> -- Using SIP in the first place
> -- SIP Events
> -- RLS
> -- SIP Message
> -- MSRP
> -- XCAP
> -- etc
> =

> From the discussions so far, it sounds like most of the complaints are in=
 the area of reusing user lists between clients (e.g. contact lists, presen=
ce rules, etc). Do people really hate the entire SIMPLE suite, or is it jus=
t an XCAP issue.

IM and SIP events are nice, the problem I've experienced with SIMPLE was le=
tter P. The fact that a complex protocol (XCAP) was used along with multipl=
e documents, and stretching resource-lists to contain a buddylist is what c=
reates trouble. Actually XCAP is fine for storage, if we remove that defaul=
t namespace problem and find a way to have something like xcap-diff which c=
ontains full contacts every time.

> =

> If the scope of the work is "start over from scratch", then it seems like=
 we would be better served starting with XMPP. I'd be very surprised if we =
could get support for creating "yet another presence and IM protocol".
> =

> We've been there before and it wasn't pretty.
> =


Not sure if anybody has had problems with the IM part, but I'm pretty sure =
I=F1aki is talking just a bout the presence part, just as I am.

Now, assuming we are just considering presence here, we could go either way=
: create a completely new spec which reuses nothing from the current (or ma=
ybe SIP events) or try to reuse what would "make sense" without compromisin=
g the whole design. The problem is that if we go the reusing route, is it a=
cceptable that all specified documents are discarded,a  new document type i=
s created and XCAP default namespace handling is fixed? I would not be back=
ward compatible, of course.

IMHO this is the key point before starting to design any solution to the pr=
oblem, because if it won't be accepted / adopted no matter how clever it is=
, we better do something else.


My 2 cents. Regards,

--
Sa=FAl Ibarra Corretg=E9
AG Projects