Subject: [Simple] Hello SIMPLE

From: doolin wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:39:58 +0800

Hello,

Just join the mail list.
Could someone tell me where can I get the new progress of SIMPLE?

-- 
Steven Wu
Teleca Mobile Solution

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:02:13 -0500

Hello, and welcome.

You can look at the work group charter. Unfortunately, the milestone dates are well out of date, but the milestones themselves are reasonably accurate:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/simple/charter/

There's a list of RFCs and drafts at:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/simple/

... and mail list archives at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/maillist.html

On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:39 AM, doolin wu wrote:

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

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:52:49 +0200

The tools page for the WG also gives some information:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/simple/

Much of this is what is in the datatracker charter page, but it does tell you quicker about the dead and expired documents. It is a further search on datatracker to get you these.

regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:02 AM
> To: doolin wu
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Hello SIMPLE
> 
> Hello, and welcome.
> 
> You can look at the work group charter. Unfortunately, the 
> milestone dates are well out of date, but the milestones 
> themselves are reasonably accurate:
>

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:19:05 +0200

> Could someone tell me where can I get the new progress of SIMPLE?

Do you mean progress about SIMPLE specifications? or about SIMPLE
implementations in the real world?

For the first question (SIMPLE specifications) there are a lot, but
most of them not enough reliable or strict, so other organizations as
OMA/RCS take them and add extra layers of specifications to get
something usable (but not so usable in fact, as the final RCS
specifications provide less features than MSN 8 years ago).

For the second question (SIMPLE implementations in the real world)
there is no interest at all in implementing most of the SIMPLE
specifications, nobody in Internet wants them as there are other
protocols (as XMPP) much more reliable, powerful and easy to implement
(without mixing two different protocols, SIP and HTTP, in order to
mantain a simple buddylist):
  http://oversip.net/public/XMPP.jpeg

For sure just IMS is interested in SIMPLE/XCAP/XDM architecture as
they like a lot the complex diagrams and message flows:
  http://oversip.net/public/SIP_SIMPLE_OMA.jpeg

I have no doubt about why Google and Facebook have chosen XMPP. It has
been easier for Google to add voice feature to XMPP rather than using
SIP (mature voice specs) having to implement SIMPLE stuf for
presence/IM.

But well, does somebody care that no one innovative provider in
Internet (so far from 3GPP operators) is interested in SIMPLE? I'm
really worried about it, and IMHO the way is not adding more and more
drafts about xcap-diff and such unuseful and complex stuf. The core of
SIMPLE/XCAP (in presence terms) is a pain IMHO, and adding more and
more drafts over it will fix nothing.

Sorry for being so rude in my words, but this is what I think after
long time dealing and implementing most of the SIMPLE/XCAP
specifications (for presence), so I think I do know what I'm speaking
about.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: doolin wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:05:36 +0800

Thanks for your experiences!
If just for IM maybe people does like use SIMPLE because there is XMPP.
But think about the software arch, our system has implemented voice and
video over IP based on SIP. We are going to add IM for our system based the
lower layer SIP stack.
In this case, I think SIMPLE is a good choice then XMPP. Do you think so?

-Steven

-- 
Steven Wu
Teleca Mobile Solution

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:12:22 +0200

> In this case, I think SIMPLE is a good choice then XMPP. Do you think so?

Advanced IM in SIP is MSRP and IM conference specifications. I think
it's suitable, yes.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: doolin wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:22:00 +0800

Is there any SIP based IM application in real world?

-Steven

-- 
Steven Wu
Teleca Mobile Solution

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:23:59 +0200

> Is there any SIP based IM application in real world?

Now there are some SIP devices (mostly softphones) starting with MSRP.
Until now just the old legacy "MESSAGE" was implemented.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:25:33 +0200

Try Blink

http://icanblink.com

It has IM, File Transfer and Desktop Sharing using MSRP and its relay  
extension.

Adrian

---

From: Victor Pascual Avila <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:45:16 +0200

> Is there any SIP based IM application in real world?

Blink[1] is a nice piece of software

[1] http://www.ag-projects.com/content/view/587/283/

Cheers,
-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila