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

On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:

> 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?
> =


If memory serves correctly, you could stay connected with your relay and se=
nd all sessions through it, since session multiplexing over a single TCP co=
nnection is supported.

> 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 understandi=
ng.
> =

> 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.
> =


Very good point.

> 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.
> =


Thanks for your input Emil!


Regards,

--
Sa=FAl Ibarra Corretg=E9
AG Projects