El Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:11:22 +0200
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> escribió:
2010/10/20 Victor Pascual Avila
<victor.pascual.avila(a)gmail.com>om>:
I find this a worthwhile topic to pursue. I had
been wondering whether
this activity would turn out to be more of a profiling exercise, and
whether the IETF might not be the best choice of venue for such work.
From the current draft charter it looks like there will be at least
some protocol extension work, for which I believe the IETF is the
correct venue. On the other hand, the Unified Communications
Interoperability Forum (UCIF) is seeking to advance the state of play
on XMPP interoperability, and if we were just talking about a profile
or BCP, that might have been a better venue. Perhaps the IETF should
focus on requirements and protocol extensions, and consider whether
the BCP work would be better done elsewhere. Or at least, there should
be some coordination with other activities relating to XMPP
interoperability.
"Integrating" XMPP into SIP is a workaround IMHO, but the fact that
some work is being done in this area confirms the failure of SIMPLE.
IMHO it's better to define a new specification for presence in SIP
*from scratch* forgetting all about SIMPLE (all means all).
Anyways, integrating such new specification with xmpp with extensions, gws or
whatever method is a win-win strategy.