IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 02 November 2012 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B43F21F8AC8 for <simple@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNUW5SRH0l1Y for <simple@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458CE21F8AC2 for <simple@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qA2EK59F027173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:20:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkpeRhQW=tJpy3A8q0-KG8dWs=in9WFmOnkBYEi7DyZ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:20:05 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <52C2C109-CFBD-4577-AF63-E36F82F6A809@nostrum.com>
References: <axjp925efdvel8fmpey6jc73.1351800528451@email.android.com> <E0C42E85-1C67-435E-BCB8-F8F980DD9FE4@edvina.net> <2C9DA935-CBBD-4DCF-A2A4-FF0139FB62B2@ag-projects.com> <CALiegfmBNCTxcK0ZVdWXToDsYLWgtp9vyprt6Yj0_C=81yFWQQ@mail.gmail.com> <4BB9B7CC-7866-4406-BE3B-20A266D34E53@ag-projects.com> <CALiegfmmbOtw6TLfMd5AS2iQLr1maxKi+8tjnaoDa9OQB8SxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <F07738BF-C267-43B6-BC5D-F129C95718AD@ag-projects.com> <CALiegfkpeRhQW=tJpy3A8q0-KG8dWs=in9WFmOnkBYEi7DyZ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "simple@ietf.org" <simple@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Simple] SIMPLE and OMA and 3Gpp and RCS and… (new subject)
X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions <simple.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple>
List-Post: <mailto:simple@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple>, <mailto:simple-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:20:26 -0000

(as individual)

On Nov 2, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> 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

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. 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email