Subject: [Simple] simple-chat status

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:21:19 +0200

(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.

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:46:50 +0300

Something that I really see missing in the area of SIP presence and IM and 
is 
related to simple-chat is the enablement of chat rooms and interdomain 
chat 
rooms in particular.

I do not know what should be the route of achieving this but it seems 
something 
that is really missing for SIP presence and IM deployments.

If there is a need for someone to help here, I am willing to help.

--Avshalom

From:
Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
To:
Simple WG <[email-masked]>
Date:
27/07/2009 06:21 PM
Subject:
[Simple] simple-chat status
Sent by:
[email-masked]

(as SIMPLE chair)

Hi,

Thanks!

Ben.
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:59:51 +0200

Ben Campbell wrote:
> feedback. That is, there's still at least a bit of work left to do on it.
>

It's moving along slowly, but (relatively) steadily. Basically, it's a 
turtle racing a snail, and the CCMP turtle is gaining on the SIMPLE-CHAT 
snail. I personally question the value of the SIMPLE-CHAT work at this 
point, because I can't imagine it being published more than about 3 
months ahead of CCMP (which will make SIMPLE-CHAT a moot point).

/a

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:37:06 +0200

Hi Avshalom--comments inline:

> Something that I really see missing in the area of SIP presence and  
> IM and is
> related to simple-chat is the enablement of chat rooms and  
> interdomain chat
> rooms in particular.
>

We're not contemplating tossing out the chat-room concept. The  
question is, whether we should continue with the simple-chat draft, or  
defer to the more general solutions being worked in XCON.

Can you elaborate on your inter-domain comment? What do you see as  
missing?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:06:53 +1000

I believe we should finish what we already started. CCMP does not interest
me.

Hisham

2009/7/28 Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>

> (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:
>
> 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.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:40:37 +0200

Hi Hisham,

To clarify: You plan to implement, or otherwise have a need for simple- 
chat, and a CCMP solution would not work for you?

On Jul 30, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Hisham Khartabil wrote:

> I believe we should finish what we already started
> CCMP does not interest me.
>
> Hisham
>
> 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.
>
> Is simple-chat still relevant? Should we take the effort to fix it,  
> or should we shoot that milestone in the head?
>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:45:29 +0200

(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.

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:56:21 +0300

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 <[email-masked]>
To:
Simple WG <[email-masked]>
Date:
30/07/2009 03:45 PM
Subject:
Re: [Simple] simple-chat status
Sent by:
[email-masked]

(As chair)

Thanks!

ben.