[standards-jig] FW: Let's fix THE PROBLEM
JHildebrand at jabber.com
Thu Jul 17 21:23:13 UTC 2003
No. It's more important that we get XMPP finished and out the door as
quickly as possible, honoring the spirit of the xmppwg charter, which points
us toward maintaining backward-compatibility where possible.
Having a pub/sub system *also*, based on the same underlying transport, is a
really good thing. I agree with you that many of the "presence" apps that
people want to build are actually pub/sub apps. But that doesn't mean that
the simple (not SIMPLE), extensible presence model of XMPP should be
Particular implementations may choose to *implement* presence in terms of
pub/sub, or to provide a pub/sub interface on to presence information, but
the existing presence protocol will have to stay in place for XMPP
compliance. Changing that at this point would mean basically starting over
from scratch, which I for one would be loathe to do.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob at wyman.us]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:29 PM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Cc: 'Heiner Wolf'
> Subject: RE: [standards-jig] FW: Let's fix THE PROBLEM
> Heiner Wolf wrote:
> >Do you think there is a way to overcome the IETF presence schism?
> Yes. Do the following simple three steps:
> 1. Functionally align the current JEP-0060 PubSub effort with
> RFC3265 and associated efforts which come out of the SIP/SIMPLE world.
> Ensure that PubSub in both worlds can inter-operate.
> 2. Redefine Jabber/XMPP Presence so that it is layered on
> top of the PubSub package currently being developed in
> JEP-0060. Presence should be nothing more than an "event
> package" or data type which is carried over the PubSub transport.
> 3. Agree on a common format for presence information
> between SIMPLE and XMPP.
> Easy... :-)
> bob wyman
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards