[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Simple] simple-chat status



I agree with the room sense approach.  Publishing both in the same timeframe, may create even more confusion in this area. I am not even sure that providing both will not raise questions from the IESG when we will reach to that stage.

--Avshalom





From: Ben Campbell <ben at nostrum.com>
To: Simple WG <simple at ietf.org>
Date: 30/07/2009 03:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Simple] simple-chat status
Sent by: simple-bounces at ietf.org





(As chair)

The sense of the room in Stockholm was that we no longer needed the  
simple-chat as it currently exists, but that we did need to make sure  
we preserved the information in it that describes how a focus works  
with MSRP and message/cpim, whether as a scaled down version of simple-
chat or as an addition to the XCON documents.

I'd like to make a consensus call on the list to confirm or deny that  
approach. (I just saw Hisham's email--what do other's think?)

Thanks!

ben.

On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> (as SIMPLE chair)
>
> Hi,
>
> We originally started work on draft-ietf-simple-chat back in 2007,  
> with the idea that we could finish it quickly, and have something  
> that works prior to completion of similar, but more general work in  
> XCON.
>
> It's been two years now, so we clearly didn't finish it quickly, and  
> it's been sitting without update or discussion since last spring.  
> (Please don't take that as a complaint against the authors. I don't  
> mean it that way--we're all busy here.) We are looking at how to get  
> the draft moving again, but there's an important question we should  
> address first:
>
> Is simple-chat still relevant? Should we take the effort to fix it,  
> or should we shoot that milestone in the head?
>
> To recap, we WGLC'd simple-chat last April. There were non-trivial  
> (but not necessarily earth-shattering) issues brought up in the  
> feedback. That is, there's still at least a bit of work left to do  
> on it.
>
> Perhaps Adam or Alan could comment on the status of the related work  
> in XCON?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> Simple at ietf.org
>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple