Subject: [Simple] Internal WG Review: Recharter of SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:33:53 -0500

A new charter for the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging
Extensions (simple) working group in the Real-time Applications and
Infrastructure Area of the IETF is being considered. The draft charter 
is provided below for your review and comment.

Review time is one week.

The IETF Secretariat

+++

SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)
======================================================================

Last Modified: 2007-1-24

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>

Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Director(s):
Jon Peterson <[email-masked]>
Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>

Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:
Jon Peterson <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
Jon Peterson <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/index.html

Description of Working Group:

This working group focuses on the application of the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP, RFC 3261) to the suite of services collectively known as
instant messaging and presence (IMP). The IETF has committed to 
producing an interoperable standard for these services compliant to 
the requirements for IM outlined in RFC 2779 (including the security 
and privacy requirements there) and in the Common Presence and Instant 
Messaging (CPIM) specification, developed within the IMPP working 
group. As the most common services for which SIP is used share quite a 
bit in common with IMP, the adaptation of SIP to IMP seems a natural 
choice given the widespread support for (and relative maturity of) the
SIP standard.

This group has completed the majority of its primary goals and will 
focus on the remaining tasks documented here and concluding. Any 
proposed new work should be socialized with the chairs and AD early to 
determine if this WG is an appropriate venue.

The primary remaining work of this group will be to complete:

1. The MSRP proposed standard mechanism for transporting sessions of
messages initiated using the SIP, compliant to the requirments of RFC 
2779, CPIM and BCP 41.

2. The XCAP framework for representing and carrying configuration and
policy information in SIMPLE systems.

3. A mechanism for representing partial changes (patches) to XML
documents and extensions to the SIMPLE publication and notification 
mechanisms to convey these partial changes.

4. A mechanism for initiating and managing Instant Message group chat.

5. An annotated overview of the SIMPLE protocol definition documents.

Any SIP extensions proposed in the course of this development will, 
after a last call process, be transferred to the SIP WG for 
consideration as formal SIP extensions.

Any mechanisms created for managing Instant Message group chat are
intended to provide a bridge to the conferencing protocols that will 
be defined in XCON. They will be limited in scope to address only 
simple Instant Message chat with nicknames and will not attempt
to address complex conferencing concepts such as sidebars. Their 
design must anticipate operating in conjunction with the conferencing 
protocols XCON is working towards.

The working group will work within the framework for presence and IM
described in RFC 2778. The extensions it defines must also be 
compliant with the SIP processes for extensions. The group cannot 
modify baseline SIP behavior or define a new version of SIP for IM and 
presence. If the group determines that any capabilities requiring an 
extension to SIP are needed, the group will seek to define such
extensions within the SIP working group, and then use them here.

Goals and Milestones:
Done Submission of event package for presence to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of watcher information drafts to IESG for publication as Proposed Standards
Done Submission of proposed event list mechanism to the SIP working group 
Done Submission of requirements for event publishing to the IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of proposed mechanism for event publishing to the SIP
working group
Done Submission of SIMPLE PIDF profile to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of base XCAP draft to IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Done Submission of indication of instant message preparation using SIP to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
Done Submission of XCAP usage for manipulation of presence document
content
Done Submission of XCAP usage for setting presence authorization to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of Filtering mechanisms to IESG for publication as a
Proposed Standard
Done Submission of instant messaging session draft to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
Done Submission of instant messaging session relay drafts to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standards
Done Submission of Partial Notification mechanism to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
Feb 2007 Submission of an Instant Message Disposition Notification
mechanism to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
Feb 2007 Submission of XCAP event package to IESG or appropriate working group targeting publication as Proposed Standard
Feb 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms meeting the advanced messaging requirements to the IESG or appropriate working group
Mar 2007 Submission of a performance and scalability analysis of the
SIMPLE presence mechanisms to the IESG for publication as Informational
Jun 2007 Submission of SIMPLE protocol annotated overview draft to IESG
for publication as Informational
Aug 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms for initiating and managing
Instant Message group chat to the IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Aug 2007 Conclusion of SIMPLE

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:15:08 -0500

Wasn't there some talk of a need to specify how to choose between 
MESSAGE and MSRP, and/or to transition between them in support of a 
single conversation?

E.g. send a MESSAGE because there may never be a conversation, but then 
INVITE with an MSRP session to continue the conversation. The need here 
would be for a way to tie these things together so it is clear that they 
are part of the same conversation. There are obviously issues with 
involving the same pair of UAs in both.

I seem to recall this was discussed at some point, but I'm not sure and 
if so I don't remember the outcome.

	Paul

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:50:37 -0600

I also remember that being brought up, and also don't remember the  
outcome ;-)

On Jan 30, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> E.g. send a MESSAGE because there may never be a conversation, but  
> then INVITE with an MSRP session to continue the conversation. The  
> need here would be for a way to tie these things together so it is  
> clear that they are part of the same conversation. There are  
> obviously issues with involving the same pair of UAs in both.
>
> I seem to recall this was discussed at some point, but I'm not sure  
> and if so I don't remember the outcome.
>
> 	Paul
>
> IESG Secretary wrote:
>> Infrastructure Area of the IETF is being considered. The draft  
>> charter is provided below for your review and comment.
>> Review time is one week.
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> +++
>> producing an interoperable standard for these services compliant  
>> to the requirements for IM outlined in RFC 2779 (including the  
>> security and privacy requirements there) and in the Common  
>> Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM) specification, developed  
>> within the IMPP working group. As the most common services for  
>> which SIP is used share quite a bit in common with IMP, the  
>> adaptation of SIP to IMP seems a natural choice given the  
>> widespread support for (and relative maturity of) the
>> SIP standard.
>> This group has completed the majority of its primary goals and  
>> will focus on the remaining tasks documented here and concluding.  
>> Any proposed new work should be socialized with the chairs and AD  
>> early to determine if this WG is an appropriate venue.
>> messages initiated using the SIP, compliant to the requirments of  
>> RFC 2779, CPIM and BCP 41.
>> documents and extensions to the SIMPLE publication and  
>> notification mechanisms to convey these partial changes.
>> Any SIP extensions proposed in the course of this development  
>> will, after a last call process, be transferred to the SIP WG for  
>> intended to provide a bridge to the conferencing protocols that  
>> will be defined in XCON. They will be limited in scope to address  
>> only simple Instant Message chat with nicknames and will not attempt
>> design must anticipate operating in conjunction with the  
>> conferencing protocols XCON is working towards.
>> modify baseline SIP behavior or define a new version of SIP for IM  
>> and presence. If the group determines that any capabilities  
>> requiring an extension to SIP are needed, the group will seek to  
>> define such
>> Done Submission of proposed event list mechanism to the SIP  
>> working group Done Submission of requirements for event publishing  
>> to the IESG for
>> Done Submission of indication of instant message preparation using  
>> SIP to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
>> Done Submission of XCAP usage for setting presence authorization  
>> to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>> Feb 2007 Submission of XCAP event package to IESG or appropriate  
>> working group targeting publication as Proposed Standard
>> Feb 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms meeting the advanced  
>> messaging requirements to the IESG or appropriate working group

---

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:43:20 +1100

I believe this was to be put into the June milestone. But I guess Ben
and Paul want to see it as one of the primary milestones listed.

Regards,
Hisham

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:42:10 -0600

No, the June milestone is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure we  
didn't forget it. I did not originally make the connection, but it  
makes sense on a re-read.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:15:16 -0500

Ben Campbell wrote:
> didn't forget it. I did not originally make the connection, but it makes 
> sense on a re-read.

I also don't care much whether there is an explicit milestone. I was 
just trying to understand if that is still on the table.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:37:05 +0200

Hi,

Yes, I think this is a feature that would be needed in practice. Having
two messaging mechanisms without clear guidance on how they relate to
each other is going to cause interoperability issues - if not on the
protocol level then at least on the UI-to-UI or user-to-user level.

Another thing is that there should be some kind of
specification/guideline on how to actually deliver one-shot messages
that are larger than 1300 bytes. One way is to use MSRP, another to do
content indirection with MESSAGE. In MSRP the key is the ability for the
sender to indicate (at least as a preference/hint) that the session is
established for just sending a single message, not to open a
conversation. This is wanted by providers who would like to be able to
offer something similar to MMS service on top of a SIP infra. 

SIMPLE WG has not been very enthusiastic about this in the past, so I
think OMA has already defined a particular mechanism for MSRP. If
everyone who is interested in this is anyway involved in OMA, as it
seems, there would be not much value for IETF to do anything about it.
However, if there is real interest outside OMA, it would be useful to
have some work in SIMPLE WG.

Markus

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 31 January, 2007 00:15
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Simple] Internal WG Review: Recharter of SIP for 
>InstantMessaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)
>
>Wasn't there some talk of a need to specify how to choose 
>between MESSAGE and MSRP, and/or to transition between them in 
>support of a single conversation?
>
>E.g. send a MESSAGE because there may never be a conversation, 
>but then INVITE with an MSRP session to continue the 
>conversation. The need here would be for a way to tie these 
>things together so it is clear that they are part of the same 
>conversation. There are obviously issues with involving the 
>same pair of UAs in both.
>
>I seem to recall this was discussed at some point, but I'm not 
>sure and if so I don't remember the outcome.
>
>	Paul
>
>IESG Secretary wrote:
>> A new charter for the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence 
>> Leveraging Extensions (simple) working group in the Real-time 
>> Applications and Infrastructure Area of the IETF is being 
>considered. 
>> The draft charter is provided below for your review and comment.
>> 
>> Review time is one week.
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> 
>> +++
>> 
>> Jon Peterson <[email-masked]> Cullen Jennings 
>> <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> This working group focuses on the application of the Session 
>> Initiation Protocol (SIP, RFC 3261) to the suite of services 
>> collectively known as instant messaging and presence (IMP). The IETF 
>> has committed to producing an interoperable standard for these 
>> services compliant to the requirements for IM outlined in RFC 2779 
>> (including the security and privacy requirements there) and in the 
>> Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM) specification, 
>developed 
>> within the IMPP working group. As the most common services for which 
>> SIP is used share quite a bit in common with IMP, the adaptation of 
>> SIP to IMP seems a natural choice given the widespread support for 
>> (and relative maturity of) the SIP standard.
>> 
>> simple Instant Message chat with nicknames and will not attempt to 
>> address complex conferencing concepts such as sidebars. Their design 
>> must anticipate operating in conjunction with the conferencing 
>> Done Submission of event package for presence to IESG for 
>publication 
>> as Proposed Standard Done Submission of watcher information 
>drafts to 
>> IESG for publication as Proposed Standards Done Submission 
>of proposed 
>> event list mechanism to the SIP working group Done Submission of 
>> requirements for event publishing to the IESG for publication as 
>> Proposed Standard Done Submission of proposed mechanism for event 
>> publishing to the SIP working group Done Submission of SIMPLE PIDF 
>> profile to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard Done Submission 
>> of base XCAP draft to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard Done 
>> Submission of indication of instant message preparation using SIP to 
>> IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard Done Submission of XCAP 
>> usage for manipulation of presence document content Done 
>Submission of 
>> XCAP usage for setting presence authorization to IESG for 
>publication 
>> as Proposed Standard Done Submission of Filtering mechanisms to IESG 
>> for publication as a Proposed Standard Done Submission of instant 
>> messaging session draft to IESG for publication as a 
>Proposed Standard 
>> publication as Proposed Standards Done Submission of Partial 
>> Notification mechanism to IESG for publication as a Proposed 
>Standard 
>Feb 2007 
>> Submission of XCAP event package to IESG or appropriate 
>working group 
>> targeting publication as Proposed Standard Feb 2007 Submission of 
>> proposed mechanisms meeting the advanced messaging 
>requirements to the 
>> IESG or appropriate working group Mar 2007 Submission of a 
>performance 
>> and scalability analysis of the SIMPLE presence mechanisms 
>to the IESG 
>> for publication as Informational Jun 2007 Submission of SIMPLE 
>> protocol annotated overview draft to IESG for publication as 
>> Informational Aug 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms for 
>> initiating and managing Instant Message group chat to the IESG for 
>> publication as Proposed Standard Aug 2007 Conclusion of SIMPLE
>>

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:10:16 +0200

Regarding:

Assuming that we will find things that need to be improved in e.g. 3265
what will be the mechanism for the improvements? Via SIP WG?

--Avshalom

IESG Secretary <[email-masked]> 
30/01/2007 23:33

To
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], Robert Sparks 
<[email-masked]>, Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Simple] Internal WG Review: Recharter of SIP for Instant Messaging and 
Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)

Review time is one week.

The IETF Secretariat

+++

Last Modified: 2007-1-24

Chair(s):

Technical Advisor(s):

Mailing Lists:

Goals and Milestones:
Done Submission of event package for presence to IESG for publication as 
Proposed Standard
Done Submission of watcher information drafts to IESG for publication as 
Proposed Standards
Done Submission of proposed event list mechanism to the SIP working group 
Done Submission of requirements for event publishing to the IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of proposed mechanism for event publishing to the SIP
working group
Done Submission of SIMPLE PIDF profile to IESG for publication as Proposed 
Standard
Done Submission of base XCAP draft to IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Done Submission of indication of instant message preparation using SIP to 
IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
Done Submission of XCAP usage for manipulation of presence document
content
Done Submission of XCAP usage for setting presence authorization to IESG 
for publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of Filtering mechanisms to IESG for publication as a
Proposed Standard
Done Submission of instant messaging session draft to IESG for publication 
as a Proposed Standard
Done Submission of instant messaging session relay drafts to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standards
Done Submission of Partial Notification mechanism to IESG for publication 
as a Proposed Standard
Feb 2007 Submission of an Instant Message Disposition Notification
mechanism to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
Feb 2007 Submission of XCAP event package to IESG or appropriate working 
group targeting publication as Proposed Standard
Feb 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms meeting the advanced messaging 
requirements to the IESG or appropriate working group
Mar 2007 Submission of a performance and scalability analysis of the
SIMPLE presence mechanisms to the IESG for publication as Informational
Jun 2007 Submission of SIMPLE protocol annotated overview draft to IESG
for publication as Informational
Aug 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms for initiating and managing
Instant Message group chat to the IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Aug 2007 Conclusion of SIMPLE

Regarding:

Assuming that we will find things that need to be improved in e.g. 3265
what will be the mechanism for the improvements? Via SIP WG?

--Avshalom

IESG Secretary <[email-masked]> 
30/01/2007 23:33

To
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], Robert Sparks 
<[email-masked]>, Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Simple] Internal WG Review: Recharter of SIP for Instant Messaging and 
Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)

Review time is one week.

The IETF Secretariat

+++

SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)
=========gt;<br>
<br>
Technical Advisor(s):<br>
Jon Peterson &lt;[email-masked]&gt;<br>
<br>
Mailing Lists:<br>
General Discussion: [email-masked]<br>
To Subscribe: [email-masked]<br>
In Body: subscribe<br>
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/index.html<br>
<br>
Description of Working Group:<br>
<br>
This working group focuses on the application of the Session Initiation<br>
Protocol (SIP, RFC 3261) to the suite of services collectively known as<br>
instant messaging and presence (IMP). The IETF has committed to <br>
producing an interoperable standard for these services compliant to <br>
the requirements for IM outlined in RFC 2779 (including the security <br>
and privacy requirements there) and in the Common Presence and Instant
<br>
Messaging (CPIM) specification, developed within the IMPP working <br>
group. As the most common services for which SIP is used share quite a
<br>
bit in common with IMP, the adaptation of SIP to IMP seems a natural <br>
choice given the widespread support for (and relative maturity of) the<br>
SIP standard.<br>
<br>
This group has completed the majority of its primary goals and will <br>
focus on the remaining tasks documented here and concluding. Any <br>
proposed new work should be socialized with the chairs and AD early to
<br>
determine if this WG is an appropriate venue.<br>
<br>
The primary remaining work of this group will be to complete:<br>
<br>
1. The MSRP proposed standard mechanism for transporting sessions of<br>
messages initiated using the SIP, compliant to the requirments of RFC <br>
2779, CPIM and BCP 41.<br>
<br>
2. The XCAP framework for representing and carrying configuration and<br>
policy information in SIMPLE systems.<br>
<br>
3. A mechanism for representing partial changes (patches) to XML<br>
documents and extensions to the SIMPLE publication and notification <br>
mechanisms to convey these partial changes.<br>
<br>
4. A mechanism for initiating and managing Instant Message group chat.<br>
<br>
5. An annotated overview of the SIMPLE protocol definition documents.<br>
<br>
Any SIP extensions proposed in the course of this development will, <br>
after a last call process, be transferred to the SIP WG for <br>
consideration as formal SIP extensions.<br>
<br>
Any mechanisms created for managing Instant Message group chat are<br>
intended to provide a bridge to the conferencing protocols that will <br>
be defined in XCON. They will be limited in scope to address only <br>
simple Instant Message chat with nicknames and will not attempt<br>
to address complex conferencing concepts such as sidebars. Their <br>
design must anticipate operating in conjunction with the conferencing <br>
protocols XCON is working towards.<br>
<br>
The working group will work within the framework for presence and IM<br>
described in RFC 2778. The extensions it defines must also be <br>
compliant with the SIP processes for extensions. The group cannot <br>
modify baseline SIP behavior or define a new version of SIP for IM and
<br>
presence. If the group determines that any capabilities requiring an <br>
extension to SIP are needed, the group will seek to define such<br>
extensions within the SIP working group, and then use them here.<br>
<br>
Goals and Milestones:<br>
Done Submission of event package for presence to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard<br>
Done Submission of watcher information drafts to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standards<br>
Done Submission of proposed event list mechanism to the SIP working group
<br>
Done Submission of requirements for event publishing to the IESG for<br>
publication as Proposed Standard<br>
Done Submission of proposed mechanism for event publishing to the SIP<br>
working group<br>
Done Submission of SIMPLE PIDF profile to IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard<br>
Done Submission of base XCAP draft to IESG for publication as Proposed<br>
Standard<br>
Done Submission of indication of instant message preparation using SIP
to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard<br>
Done Submission of XCAP usage for manipulati=============================================================

Last Modified: 2007-1-24

Chair(s):

Technical Advisor(s):

Mailing Lists:

Goals and Milestones:
Done Submission of event package for presence to IESG for publication as 
Proposed Standard
Done Submission of watcher information drafts to IESG for publication as 
Proposed Standards
Done Submission of proposed event list mechanism to the SIP working group 
Done Submission of requirements for event publishing to the IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Done Submission of proposed mechanism for event publishing to the SIP
working group
Done Submission of SIMPLE PIDF profile to IESG for publication as Proposed 
Standard
Done Submission of base XCAP draft to IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Done Submission of indication of inon of presence document<br>
content<br>
Done Submission of XCAP usage for setting presence authorization to IESG
for publication as Proposed Standard<br>
Done Submission of Filtering mechanisms to IESG for publication as a<br>
Proposed Standard<br>
Done Submission of instant messaging session draft to IESG for publication
as a Proposed Standard<br>
Done Submission of instant messaging session relay drafts to IESG for<br>
publication as Proposed Standards<br>
Done Submission of Partial Notification mechanism to IESG for publication
as a Proposed Standard<br>
Feb 2007 Submission of an Instant Message Disposition Notification<br>
mechanism to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard<br>
Feb 2007 Submission of XCAP event package to IESG or appropriate working
group targeting publication as Proposed Standard<br>
Feb 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms meeting the advanced messaging
requirements to the IESG or appropriate working group<br>
Mar 2007 Submission of a performance and scalability analysis of the<br>
SIMPLE presence mechanisms to the IESG for publication as Informational<br>
Jun 2007 Submission of SIMPLE protocol annotated overview draft to IESG<br>
for publication as Informational<br>
Aug 2007 Submission of proposed mechanisms for initiating and managing<br>
Instant Message group chat to the IESG for publication as Proposed<br>
Standard<br>
Aug 2007 Conclusion of SIMPLE<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Simple mailing list<br>
[email-masked]<br>
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple<br>
</font></tt>
<br>

---

From: "Stafford, Matthew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:48:49 -0600

Re wireless service providers wanting something similar to MMS: I would
say not only in its own right, but as an interworking vehicle with the
MMS installed base. This is important, I think, from the POV of
facilitating SIMPLE deployment- something I would very much like to see!

In the context of this conversation, I am eager to hear comments on an
internet draft posted a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stafford-simple-dmdn-00.txt

The draft sets forth use cases involving MSRP- use cases in which imdn
(or similar) functionality would be very useful. In many instances, use
cases can be supported with existing building blocks. But here we do see
a gap, and think that the best solution would be a new/extended building
block devised by IETF. As I indicated in a Jan 19 message posted to this
list, we understand the need to go ahead and progress the imdn draft
(sans MSRP).

I'm not necessarily inviting detailed discussion of this draft (in the
midst of the current rechartering discussion, that might be premature).
At this point, I'm wanting to know whether this sort of thing will be in
scope (and "lobbying" for the answer to be yes...)

Best,
Matt Stafford 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:37 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] Internal WG Review: Recharter of SIP
forInstantMessaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple)

Hi,

Markus