Subject: RE: [Simple] Strawman agenda: SIMPLE: IETF65

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:31:22 -0600

On the neimi-simple-chat draft, I'm a bit puzzled as to how the state of
that work is currently presented below (as "waiting for WG input").  The
WG has discussed that draft in the past and fairly recently and I wasn't
aware that the OMA demand for it was longstanding.  Per the minutes from
IETF-62
http://www.softarmor.com/simple/meets/ietf62/proceedings/simple62-sessio
n2-minutes.html
and per the recent discussions on the mailing list:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg06185.html
the issue of nicknames is still a problem and it isn't just a SIMPLE WG
decision. It impacts/overlaps with XCON and basic SIP work:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg06209.html 

Now, if we're just going to push this through because of pressures from
OMA, then let's admit that upfront and ensure that it's appropriately
labeled as an OMA specific flavor of chat, rather than suggesting the WG
has somehow been remiss at considering this work or providing
constructive feedback. 

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:21 PM
To: [email-masked] list
Subject: [Simple] Strawman agenda: SIMPLE: IETF65

All -

We're in an unusual place for SIMPLE this time. We have a lot of big  
items
that we've been pushing hard to get over the hump and they're all  
beginning
to wrap up. We have a few new things to discuss, and its time to lay  
out the plan
to pick up and finish those items we tabled during this last push.

Reflecting this, here's the proposed agenda for our meeting
Tuesday Afternoon III and IV in Dallas.

15m 	Chair update (will include status on msrp, common-policy,  
presence-rules, xcap-base)
5m		Status on xml-patch and the drafts that depend on it
(I'm  
expecting "done")
30m 	IMDN Open issues
5m		PIDF-conn Open issues
30m 	niemi-simple-chat
15m        xcap-profile
20m 	Roadmap for next round of work

Two items warrant more detail:

         niemi-simple-chate is an individual submission that's been  
waiting for working
         group input. OMA has a dependency and asks after its  
progress regularly.
         It's time to cement working group commitment to taking this  
and finishing it,
         or rejecting it. Either way, it's time to give OMA something  
definitive.

         xcap-profile started a controversial discussion in Vancouver  
with very little
         list follow-through. Rohan believes he has changed this  
proposal to be only
         an optimization per the discussion. There are still some  
important questions
         raised that I expect to take real-time discussion to  
navigate. That said, this is
         the lowest priority of what I am proposing. If we need to  
adjust the schedule
         to make room for other conversations, this is the one that  
will have time taken
         away first.

Let me know what you were expecting to discuss that you don't see here.

RjS

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

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

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:29:05 +0100

Mary,

These issues you bring up are exactly the ones we hope to talk about  
and conclude on during the SIMPLE meeting.

Thanks,
Hisham

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:36:20 -0600

Thanks for requesting clarification Mary. I didn't intend to suggest  
any particular
decision around this topic, only that we need to make some concrete  
decisions
soon.

There has been discussion around elements of this draft in the past, but
its been spread out (as you note below it impacts more than one  
working group's
efforts) and I don't think it's captured the focus of the full  
working group. We've been
pushing hard on other things, and Aki and Miguel have helped make  
sure we gave those
other things cycles.

The thread you point to below (I suggest starting at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/simple/current/msg06164.html
) is the kind of conversation I intended to draw focus to.

RjS