[standards-jig] FW: Let's fix THE PROBLEM

Nick nick at jabberstudio.org
Mon Jul 14 12:30:45 UTC 2003


Don't get me wrong here; I think this is an excellent ed-op on bringing 
presence to fruition on its own merits instead of within an IM 
standard. But, this isn't the forum to be passing on a speech from a 
"titanium-alloy plated we-in-the-industry call-to-arms rah-rah-rah" 
soap box. While we are here, might as well comment on it. My first 
knee-jerk reaction to this would be "Why in the hell develop presence 
separate? If you want something to publish and listen to presence, it's 
probably going to want to send and receive messages too. And thus XMPP 
delightfully becomes a solution." And for my well thought out reaction? 
Well... I don't have one because this isn't the list to be using to 
talking about it. Send it over to the xmpp list and see what that group 
has to say about it.
-- 

Nicholas Perez
Email: 	nick at jabberstudio.org
Jabber:	nickperez at jabber.org
Home:	303.759.0574




On 2003.07.14 06:11, Heiner Wolf wrote:
> This was sent to the mailing list of the IMPP IETF WG (
> <mailto:impp at iastate.edu> impp at iastate.edu).
> An interesting point of view.
> 
> I think he is right in that Presence and IM are closely related, but
> significantly different and that many problems come from the coupling
> of 2 different services. Its more a historical fact than a technical
> requirement that most systems design IM and P protocols as similar
> (even into the same) protocols.
> 
> Do you think there is a way to overcome the IETF presence schism?
> Is it worth solving this problem or do you think the world will
> develop towards XMPP anyhow?
> 
> hw
> --
> Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
> bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
>  <http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw> http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
> +49 (0721) 16108 75
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Batchelder [mailto:rob at batch.net]
> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 4:09 AM
> To: impp at iastate.edu
> Subject: Let's fix THE PROBLEM
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IETF Contributors:
> 
> To this point I have refrained from editorializing on the collective
> activities of the IMPP / SIMPLE / XMPP working groups.  Admittedly, I
> have not attended many of the IETF meetings - or actively contributed
> to the working groups.  Nevertheless, I am extremely active in the IM
> vendor community and do provide high level strategic counsel to the
> leading firms in this field.  That being said, I feel confident that I
> can articulate some of their concerns with IETF IM initiatives.
> 
> First of all, I would like to point out the obvious overlap in the
> three groups charters.  As previous threads (and history) show there
> are a plethora of reasons for this.  My goal is not to analyze how the
> IETF got to where it is today - but to suggest where the IETF needs to
> go in order to credibly meet the needs of IM vendors and enterprise
> users.
> 
> To those of us who are knowledgeable in this field - it is patently
> obvious that "presence" is a capability which should become part of
> the intrinsic operation of the Internet AND that instant messaging is
> but one of many messaging / collaborative applications which can be
> enabled by presence.
> 
> Regrettably, working group efforts to date have not separated presence
> from IM within their scope and goals.  Although some would argue that
> IM is so closely related to presence that such a division does not
> make sense.  I and my peers disagree.  We suggest that presence so
> fundamental, far-reaching in impact, and involved technology that it
> deserves a working group of its own.  Concomitantly, IM (and other
> presence-enabled applications) should then have their own separate,
> clearly defined working groups - which leverage advances made on the
> presence front.
> 
> Today, to the contrary, presence is still tangled up with IM and
> continues to be a political football - the "ownership" of which is
> being contested by multiple working groups.  This is "THE PROBLEM."
> 
> There are those who argue that Presence is a natural extension of
> SIP's signaling capabilities - and thus SIP should be extended to
> define how presence should operate.  There are those who counter that
> XMPP's federated presence model is sufficient for building a global
> presence infrastructure.  I submit there is some validity to both
> points of view.  The problem is that there are two (or more) points of
> view that have not converged - and that each working group continues
> to bang away at BOTH presence and IM issues in its own way.  And for
> the record - few in industry give any credibility to (IETF) platitudes
> that these efforts are collaborative and integrative.
> 
> I submit that what is needed in the Internet is a Global Presence
> Architecture (GPA) which builds upon and extends all that we have
> learned from running DNS.  What needs to be recognized in developing a
> GPA is that presence will act like a next generation "dial-tone" upon
> which a wide variety of near "real-time" applications will be built.
> As such, this dial-tone should be such that companies can privately
> employ it to serve their internal needs - as well as securely extend
> it between enterprises.  The presumption is that such a capability
> must be run at carrier-class (five-nines) reliability levels - and
> employ a universally agreed-upon name-space and security
> infrastructure.
> 
> Candidly, I and my peers in the industry believe that the IETF has
> failed to grasp this reality.  Rather, the IETF seems bent on forging
> ahead with well-intentioned but fundamentally misdirected efforts of
> sincere, intelligent, hard-working volunteers.  Many of us view the
> current state of affairs as a reflection of an IETF "face-saving"
> exercise - because no one has the temerity to stand up and say that
> defining and specifying how presence should manifest itself has been
> fundamentally mis-understood, mis-scoped, and mis-managed.
> 
> The time has come to confront this issue candidly - lest the industry
> continue to be paralyzed by IETF managerial ineptitude.  Presence
> deserves its own working group.  It should start with a clean sheet of
> paper, and not be unduly influenced by the SIP and XMPP camps.  And to
> the retort that key members of the IM industry should put aside their
> partisan issues and contribute to such a process I say, "Get your act
> together and they will!"
> 
> 
> Yours truly,
> 
> 
> Rob Batchelder
> President - Relevance
> 
> 



More information about the Standards mailing list