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

Hey all,

Since it's rant time ...

On 02.11.12, 15:20, 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 implement 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
> jettison all of the below?
> =

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

> -- MSRP -- XCAP -- etc

I've never really understood how one could justify the use of a
completely different protocol to send IMs ... as if SIP was not complex
and evolved enough to handle this. And then that new protocols is just
so awesome that one can't have different chat sessions with different
people unless they setup different connections/sockets for every
conversation. Seriously?

Then, because the above was clearly not fun enough, we add yet another
completely different protocol for storing contacts lists.

I don't know the history but the result is just way beyond my understanding.

XMPP, MSN, Yahoo! Messenger, Gadu-Gadu, ICQ, AIM (before and after they
converged in OSCAR), Skype, they all managed to handle IM, presence and
contact storage with a single protocol.

SIP needed three.

Today those are implemented within different server-side applications
that then need to be deployed together. They need to be configured to
share user bases and policies. This hinders deployment and .. well ...
almost no one does it.

If there's a remake then could we please consider consolidating the
whole thing?

>> 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, presence rules, etc). Do people really hate the entire
>> SIMPLE suite, or is it just an XCAP issue.
> =

> If the scope of the work is "start over from scratch", then it seems
> like we would be better served starting with XMPP. =


We've seen relative ease of adoption with solutions of this kind:

draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax

I am by no means insisting that a similar model has to be adopted by a
SIMPLE successor but it has to be at least that easy to deploy.
Preferably easier.

Emil

> 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.
> =

> =

> =

> =

> =

> _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list =

> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> =


-- =

https://jitsi.org