2010/10/20 Victor Pascual Avila victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com:
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).