Re: [Simple] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-simple-chat

I would agree with option 1, but I do not think you can have the 'nickname'
defined in an informational draft so options 2) and 3) are not good IMHO.
 Nickname is a key data element for chats.  So, I would suggest you add a
fourth option and that is to add a normative reference to the
xcon-data-model.  Of course, that doc will be published right around the
same time as CCMP and per the draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat, you will have
a chat based mechanism that doesn't require extensions to MSRP.  Although,
in cases where folks might first implement this mechanism for chat (rather
than XMPP, for example) and later want to use this mechanism with XCON, it
would still work - it's just that you'd have two different mechanisms for
setting the nickname.

Regards,
Mary.

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> (as chair)
>
> Hi,
>
> I discussed this with a number of people individually, but I don't think we
> ever brought this to the SIMPLE list, so I want to make it official. I've
> copied the XCON chairs, as well as people I recall discussing this with.
>
> In reviewing draft-ietf-simple-chat prior to requesting publication, we ran
> across the fact that this draft extended the data format from RFC 4575 (sip
> event package) in order to add a "nickname" data element. The issue was that
> RFC 4575 did not define a clear way to add new data elements, so this would
> appear to require an update to that RFC.
>
> OTOH, XCON produced draft-ietf-xcon-event-package and
> draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model in order to extend RFC 4575 with a richer
> data set. The former is in the RFC Editor queue, and the latter is in AD
> Followup. These drafts extend the SIP conference model with a richer data
> format. My understanding is that draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model includes
> the "nickname" element, and is otherwise a superset of the format in RFC
> 4575.
>
> We have a proposal to change draft-ietf-simple-chat as follows:
>
> 1) Remove the update to RFC 4575
>
> 2) Demote the reference to RFC 4575 to informational.
>
> 3) Add an informational reference to draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model as a
> possible way to convey "nickname" information to conference package
> subscribers.
>
> Please respond indicating whether you agree with some or all of the above,
> along with any rational you would like to share. I don't think these are all
> or nothing--for example one might agree with 3 but disagree with 1 or 2.
>
> We'd really like to get submit this draft prior to the end of the year, and
> I think this is the last blocking item, so please respond ASAP.
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>