[standards-jig] FW: Let's fix THE PROBLEM
wolf at bluehands.de
Mon Jul 14 13:22:02 UTC 2003
Thanks, also a strong opinion.
I'll try to summarize:
- Jabber is it, why bother?
- this thread is closed now.
Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
+49 (0721) 16108 75
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick [mailto:nick at jabberstudio.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:31 PM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [standards-jig] FW: Let's fix THE PROBLEM
> 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
> 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>
> > +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
> > 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)
> > 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
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards