Subject: [Simple] OMA and draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:20:59 -0600

OMA's messaging working group is all abuzz about their alleged need  
for draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt to become an RFC.

I'm trying to figure exactly which part of this draft they think they  
need, and I'll get back with you when I have more information. So  
far, they've told me that their entire chat room approach is built  
around this draft. I presume they're using the MSRP extension in this  
draft, but don't know for sure.

However, it may be time to give this draft another read, and see what  
we think about the problem set it's trying to solve -- N-way  
centralized MSRP conferencing with sidebars.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:32:51 -0600

On Feb 9, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Dean Willis wrote:

> I'm trying to figure exactly which part of this draft they think  
> they need, and I'll get back with you when I have more information.  
> So far, they've told me that their entire chat room approach is  
> built around this draft. I presume they're using the MSRP extension  
> in this draft, but don't know for sure.
>
> However, it may be time to give this draft another read, and see  
> what we think about the problem set it's trying to solve -- N-way  

For the google-challenged:

http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt

--
Dean

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:00:05 +0100

This draft is not mature at all and I hope OMA don't force SIMPLE to 
stick to whatever is in there just because that's how they defined 
their service to be (some of us have the opinion that whatever is in 
there now is broken and does not work with MSRP properly).

Thanks,
Hisham

On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> need, and I'll get back with you when I have more information. So far, 
> they've told me that their entire chat room approach is built around 
> this draft. I presume they're using the MSRP extension in this draft, 
> but don't know for sure.
>

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:04:31 -0600

I just had a chat with some of the OMA messaging people, and the main  
thing they're dealing with is sidebar conversations in MSRP  
conferences. They also want dynamic alias negotiation. They'll send  
some requirements docs and supporting material to the list in the  
next few days.

It would be nice to find a path towards a solution that works for  
everybody involved.

--
Dean Willis
IETF liaison to OMA.

On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Hisham Khartabil wrote:

> This draft is not mature at all and I hope OMA don't force SIMPLE  
> to stick to whatever is in there just because that's how they  
> defined their service to be (some of us have the opinion that  
> whatever is in there now is broken and does not work with MSRP  
> properly).
>
> Thanks,
> Hisham
>
>> OMA's messaging working group is all abuzz about their alleged  
>> need for draft-niemi-simple-chat-03.txt to become an RFC.
>>
>> they need, and I'll get back with you when I have more  
>> information. So far, they've told me that their entire chat room  
>> approach is built around this draft. I presume they're using the  
>> MSRP extension in this draft, but don't know for sure.
>>

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:30:25 +0200

ext Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> stick to whatever is in there just because that's how they defined their 
> service to be (some of us have the opinion that whatever is in there now 
> is broken and does not work with MSRP properly).

Really? Care to point out exactly where things are broken and how we 
should fix them?

You know, things don't really improve if all you do is bitch about 
drafts by yourselves.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:58:18 +0100

> Really? Care to point out exactly where things are broken and how we 

You cannot claim that the draft is mature and has the group consensus. 
This is the warning that I was sending out. I was acting as a chair and 
was not specifically pointing to any technical problems. People that 
have technical problems with the draft have already begun to bring 
those issues up as a reaction to my email.

> You know, things don't really improve if all you do is bitch about 

This is a public forum and I would appreciate some respect to others on 
it. There were no issues about this draft discussed privately "by 
ourselves". The objections to the technical solution was either 
discussed on the mailing list, in an IETF meeting or to the authors.

Hisham

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:11:37 +0200

> You cannot claim that the draft is mature and has the group consensus. 

I have never claimed anything like that. It is not mature and definitely 
hasn't got group consensus. I would like to get it there sooner rahter 
than later, because I happen to think this is important.

> was not specifically pointing to any technical problems. 

Exactly, you were stating a general comment that the content of the 
draft is broken and won't work with MSRP. I'd much rather see specific 
comments to technical issues because those we can fix.

> People that 
> have technical problems with the draft have already begun to bring those 
> issues up as a reaction to my email.

The one technical issue I've seen raised was about using non-SEND method 
for sending private messages. That will be fixed in the next version 
we're working on right now.

> discussed on the mailing list, in an IETF meeting or to the authors.

Good, then I misinterpreted your comment about "some of us have the 
opinion". Sorry about that.

Cheers,
Aki