Re: IM and Presence history

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> Yes.  I wanted to keep the note from becoming even longer, but...

ack.  figured that, but found myself compelled that the history lesson was 
useful for the record.


> > If I came in through an arpanet dial-up at some random place
> > on the net, and telneted to my home system, then the finger
> > for that home system would show me as 'present'.  I am not
> > seeing how today's presence systems are fudamentally different
> > from that.
>
> Subjectively and from my perspective, the present systems
> "feel", and sometimes actually are, much more distributed.  But,
> yes, from the perspective you describe, we have advanced very
> little in terms of basic functionality.


I believe that none of the proprietary IMs is anything other than purely 
centralized.

Having to configure multiple IM accounts, to be able to talk to different 
people, doesn't feel at all 'distributed' to me, except in the bad sense of 
multiple, disconnected, centralized services.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf