[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Simple] simple-chat status
Hi Geir,
I guess I'm still confused as I don't think you'll need the Nickname
mechanism added to MSRP if you use the XCON Framework (you get that
functionality for free, if you will). I also think the MSRP switch
functionality is something that can be naturally provided by the XCON
conference server/focus. This had been described in an earlier version
of the XCON chat document (which has been around just a few months less
than the SIMPLE document since 2005). Also, if you use XCON, you don't
need the chat room attribute per se as the "media"/"signaling" type is
part of the conference object.
I honestly don't see a problem if someone wants to implement this
version of the simple-chat document since it could easily be evolved to
the XCON framework. That all said, there is already an implementation
of the XCON protocol (CCMP) and it should not be that difficult to
combine an MSRP implementation with that rather than having a standalone
MSRP chat implementation (which requires normative changes to MSRP as
opposed to the XCON solution).
Regards,
Mary.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Arne Sandbakken [mailto:geir.sandbakken at tandberg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:14 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Ben Campbell; Simple WG
Subject: Re: [Simple] simple-chat status
Mary,
Sorry, I was a bit unclear. What I meant was breaking the draft into
pieces. The chat room attribute and nickname mechanism to be pulled out
of the draft, and moved into the XCON framework and the CCMP protocol.
Keeping the MSRP switch in this or another draft - having a normative
reference to a framework to achieve these semantics.
IMHO, implementation interest is what should decide if it should be
published.
Regards,
Geir Arne
Mary Barnes wrote:
> 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
>