Re: [Simple] simple-chat status

["Mary Barnes" <mary.barnes at nortel.com>]

Geir,

I don't think it's only the issue of the document not having been
updated. IMHO, the fact that one of the WGLC reviews was from the WG
chair and the other from me, who only did the review because it seemed
the WG was moving forward with this document, doesn't indicate
significant WG interest.  It's up to the chairs to decide if there
remains enough WG interest to complete the document. And, I didn't
understand at all that we were talking about breaking anything into
pieces - the work in XCON is a superset. 

Regards,
Mary.   


-----Original Message-----
From: simple-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:simple-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Geir Arne Sandbakken
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:54 AM
To: Ben Campbell
Cc: Simple WG
Subject: Re: [Simple] simple-chat status

It is unfortunate if my inability to move the draft forward kills a good
idea. IMHO, the good thing about simple-chat is that it is nimble. If
you have MSRP implemented, you can fairly easily add chat room support,
bring it to SIPit and test it.

We had two good WGLC reviews- and I believe all of the issues can be
resolved and published before the next meeting.

My vote goes to keeping the draft - and not break it into pieces.

Thanks!
Geir Arne

Ben Campbell wrote:
> (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

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