[Foundation] New protocol out of SIMPLE+XMPP :?

[David Yitzchak Cohen]

> > ...but mechanisms for deciding on this kind of stuff is going to
> > appear in the XMPP docs, no?  The net effect is making XMPP more
> > complex for the sole purpose of being able to interoperate natively
> > with SIP, and I fail to see any advantage there. . .

> No, that would not be part of XMPP, that would be some other protocol,
> or perhaps a stream feature that a Jabber server could implement if it
> wanted to -- it's too early to tell, but in any case it will *not* be 
> part of the XMPP specs, it would be some kind of extension or separate
> protocol.

Well, I guess that's not nearly as bad as I was fearing. . .

> I don't see much point in speculating about this stuff until after the
> IETF meeting Nov. 9-14. I'm just posting here to let people know where I
> stand.

Fair enough ... thanks :-)

 - Dave

-- 
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler.  You've seen what food processors do to food, right?

Please visit this link:
http://rotter.net/israel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20031028/e43b0209/attachment.pgp