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

Oh, and I forgot to put in my answers to the proposal consensus call: Yes on all 3.  

I can live with both references being normative if people want that, but concur with Geir's other post--I don't think we're making any normative requirement to use the event-package.

On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> (as individual)
> 
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> The informational part was not to say an informational draft, but an informational reference. I think the approach under discussion was to say that you MAY convey nickname information. One possible way to do that is with draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model. I don't have a strong objection to making that a normative reference, though, if that is what others prefer.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yep. That's come up before, and each time we land on "lets go ahead and publish simple-chat". I don't expect a different answer this time (although if someone has actually changed their mind since last time, I'd love to hear it.)
> 
>>  
>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple