Re: The ecosystem is moving

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On 13 May 2016 at 18:56, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 5/13/2016 10:32 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Martin's general conclusions here: using XMPP is
>> really hard, both as an end-user and as a provider.   I am able to get
>> it working about one out of every three IETFs.  The sticky wicket tends
>> to be finding a place that will both host my XMPP account _and_
>> interoperate with the IETF's XMPP server.
>>
>> Why doesn't the IETF just operate an XMPP server on which IETF
>> participants can get accounts?   Layer 9, or is it just really hard?
>>
>
>
> Yes, but...
>
> The IETF is supposed to be about interoperability.  If XMPP has on-going
> utility problems with interoperability, the IETF should look for ways to
> fix them.
>
>
XMPP does not have ongoing problems with interop. Quite the opposite - the
community is extremely positively engaged with the standards process at the
XSF, and interoperability issues are detected fast, treated seriously, and
fixed quickly. If they occur due to specifications being unclear, the spec
is fixed.

Every server I'm aware of, with the exception of Google's XMPP S2S service
(still operating but fundamentally broken) has supported at least the
baseline of "XMPP" for years.


> To date, we really only have two services that demonstrate open (ie,
> multi-administration) interoperability at Internet scale:  email and DNS.
>
>
If we're talking user-level services, I think we can add XMPP. Honestly, I
think XMPP interops better than email does, from a purely technical
standpoint. Obviously email is hugely more popular, but it's become
something of a minefield to safely interop in.


> After this many years, that's sad.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
>