Subject: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-chat

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:43:46 -0500

(as chair - copying XCON chairs since I invoke their wg)

Hi,

We are close to ready to progress draft-ietf-simple-chat to the IESG for review and publication. Before we do so, our ADs have asked us to reconfirm the relevance of the draft with the working group, since some time has passed since we last discussed this. Please respond to the following questions:

1) Is this draft still relevant? Have you implemented it, or do you plan to do so? At one time this was a dependency for OMA, but I understand that is no longer the case. Is anyone aware of any SDO that has a dependency on this work, such as OMA, 3GPP, or others?

2) We've had some controversy in the past over how this work relates to similar work in XCON. Originally we started this draft because we thought we could finish a more narrowly scoped effort more quickly. This has not really come to pass. Given the current state of XCON, is draft-ietf-simple-chat still relevant?

Please respond as soon as possible. Lack of response will be taken to indicate lack of interest. I realize we've discussed these before, but time has passed since then.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:13:31 -0500

Speaking as a former XCON chair with some historical insight into the 
simple-chat work:

The only real reason we, as an overall community, began the simple-chat 
work under the sole and critical premise that it would be able to 
complete before XCON. There was explicit discussion that XCON, being a 
more general solution (supporting all media types), was a better way to 
perform text chat setup and control.

And we knew full well that having two ways to do the same thing within a 
system is a Really Bad Idea. But we were willing to swallow that bitter 
pill: people were *insistent* that we needed something *now*. 
Simple-chat was conceived as a "poor-man's XCON that works only for 
text" that needed to finish "now, right now, yesterday in fact."

That didn't happen.

And now, with CCMP in pubreq, XCON is officially completing before 
simple-chat.

So, since the tortoise has lapped the hare in this endeavor, I strongly 
believe that we need to shut down the simple-chat effort. Its purpose no 
longer exists: XCON provides a solution. And the interoperability harm 
it presents as a second way to do the same thing remains.

At this point, simple-chat does nothing good. It still does something 
bad. We should remove it from the charter.

/a

On 9/27/10 3:43 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:39:57 +0200

On Sep 27, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> 1) Is this draft still relevant?

Yes

> Have you implemented it, or do you plan to do so?

Yes

> At one time this was a dependency for OMA, but I understand that is no longer the case. Is anyone aware of any SDO that has a dependency on this work, such as OMA, 3GPP, or others?
> 

Yes

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:48:11 -0500

>> 2) We've had some controversy in the past over how this work relates to similar work in XCON. Originally we started this draft because we thought we could finish a more narrowly scoped effort more…

Hi Adrian,

Can you elaborate on that?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:01:46 +0200

I agree with Adam.

-Avshalom

From:   Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
To:     Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Cc:     Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>, Simple WG 
<[email-masked]>
Date:   27/09/2010 11:13 PM
Subject:        Re: [Simple] draft-ietf-simple-chat
Sent by:        [email-masked]

That didn't happen.

/a

On 9/27/10 3:43 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> We are close to ready to progress draft-ietf-simple-chat to the IESG for 
review and publication. Before we do so, our ADs have asked us to 
reconfirm the relevance of the draft with the working group, since some 
time has passed since we last discussed this. Please respond to the 
following questions:
>
> 1) Is this draft still relevant? Have you implemented it, or do you plan 
to do so? At one time this was a dependency for OMA, but I understand that 
is no longer the case. Is anyone aware of any SDO that has a dependency on 
this work, such as OMA, 3GPP, or others?
>
> 2) We've had some controversy in the past over how this work relates to 
similar work in XCON. Originally we started this draft because we thought 
we could finish a more narrowly scoped effort more quickly. This has not 
really come to pass. Given the current state of XCON, is 
draft-ietf-simple-chat still relevant?
>
> Please respond as soon as possible. Lack of response will be taken to 
indicate lack of interest. I realize we've discussed these before, but 
time has passed since then.

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:04:41 +0200

Hi Ben,

Is there any specification about a MSRP switch in XCON?

Adrian

---

From: "Geir Arne Sandbakken" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:06:45 +0200

IMHO killing this draft will considerable hurt our chances for having
interoperable chat rooms for MSRP. Having spent cycles at SIPit and
other interoperability events, I find RFCs that provide simple
extensions to achieve important semantics extremely valuable.  This is
even more important when existing implementations already have
proprietary extensions. Agreeing on common code points - and describing
how the switch shall behave to avoid unwanted side effects  - is
imperative for achieving interoperability.  I guess implementers
expected agreeing upon common code points would go quickly,  but
sometimes small variations on implementations (aka. the nickname
discussions) makes agreeing much harder than expected.  Simple chat has
achieved agreement, and implementers can now tune their existing
implementations to achieve interoperability.

XCON provides a richer conferencing experience.  Implementers wanting
this enhanced experience can implement it - and bring it the their
favorite interoperability event to test it.  OTOH requiring the XCON
framework to be able to do simple chat rooms for MSRP will hurt
interoperability for basic implementations.  There are orders of
magnitude in difference of protocol complexity here, and one doesn't
exclude the other.

Geir A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Adam Roach
> Sent: 27. september 2010 23:14
> To: Ben Campbell
> Cc: Alan Johnston; Simple WG
> > We are close to ready to progress draft-ietf-simple-chat to the IESG
> for review and publication. Before we do so, our ADs have asked us to
> > 1) Is this draft still relevant? Have you implemented it, or do you
> plan to do so? At one time this was a dependency for OMA, but I
> understand that is no longer the case. Is anyone aware of any SDO that
> has a dependency on this work, such as OMA, 3GPP, or others?
> >
> > 2) We've had some controversy in the past over how this work relates
> to similar work in XCON. Originally we started this draft because we
> thought we could finish a more narrowly scoped effort more quickly.
> This has not really come to pass. Given the current state of XCON, is

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:49:08 -0500

> Is there any specification about a MSRP switch in XCON?

My understanding is that the nickname function is covered by the XCON data model. I don't know if the actual switch behavior is covered for MSRP. Perhaps one of the XCON experts can offer a better answer?

Am I correct in assuming that the CPIM usage is the main thing that matters to you? I recall when we had a similar discussion in Stockholm, there were some suggestions that we preserve that part somewhere, even if we didn't progress the entire chat draft.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:46:18 +0200

Is not the CPIM envelope alone but the whole MSRP switch concept, which is properly described in detail. 

Adrian

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:18:27 -0500

> Is not the CPIM envelope alone but the whole MSRP switch concept, which is properly described in detail. 

Are you using the NICKNAME MSRP method?

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:43:34 +0200

Hi Ben,

No, I am not using it. 

Is here the Nickname the issue or the whole concept of the MSRP switch?

Because I do not want to have lost so much energy just because the Nickname part is such a debatable issue.

Adrian

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:45:31 -0500

> Because I do not want to have lost so much energy just because the Nickname part is such a debatable issue.

I asked in order to gather information on what people are actually using, not to imply a problem with one feature or another. But my understanding it that NICKNAME is one of the more significant points of overlap with XCON.

---

From: Adrian Georgescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:59:02 +0200

OK, now is crystal clear.

I wish we do not confuse the Nickname part alone with the whole MSRP switch concept. If Nickname issue is at stake and can be tackled  by XCON WG, is alright, at least from my narrow point of view.

The rest of the draft, as long as is not verbatim taken over by XCON, I see no reason that it should be dropped by the SIMPLE WG, but the opposite.  

Regards,
Adrian

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:55:12 +1000

I concur with Geir.

Thanks,
Hisham