RE: Jabber BOF afterthoughts

To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson at neustar.biz>, "'ietf at ietf.org'" <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Jabber BOF afterthoughts
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:16:10 +0800
Cc: "'Marshall Rose'" <mrose at DBC.MTVIEW.CA.US>, "Shockey, Richard" <rich.shockey at neustar.biz>
In-reply-to: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA810A0331@stntexch2.va.neustar.com>
References: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA810A0331@stntexch2.va.neustar.com >
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

--On 23. juli 2002 21:49 -0400 "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson at neustar.biz> wrote:

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that chartering a new
WG today that competes directly with SIMPLE would be taken by many to mean
that the IETF still has not arrived at a workable solution (and no doubt
some proponents of XMPP feel that to be the case).

I think the single step most useful to stem this perception is to get the CPIM documents out the door and published, have at least one IM-transport protocol publish its interface to CPIM, and having running code that proves that the resulting functionality is in fact useful.

Pair of facts beats house of prediction.

                               Harald

References:
- RE: Jabber BOF afterthoughts
  - From: Peterson, Jon

Prev by Date: Re: DNS based URI without any set access semantics?
Next by Date: Re: DNS based URI without any set access semantics?
Previous by thread: RE: Jabber BOF afterthoughts
Next by thread: RE: Jabber BOF afterthoughts
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

RE: Jabber BOF afterthoughts

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.