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

Heiner Wolf 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.

hw
--
Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
+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 
> 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
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 



More information about the Standards mailing list