RE: Preparing to close APEX.

["Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>]

I don't think Dave is sabotaging IMPP at the moment. The core documents are
past WGLC and he has not made any further comments on the latest versions
(which were released before Atlanta) which incorporated amendations to meet
his most recent concerns.

I think it would be worth it to try to IETF LC the core IMPP documents at
this time. Dave might find some new grounds for objection, but then again he
might not. Getting those documents out would be beneficial not only to the
APEX situation but also to the SIMPLE situation. It is preferable, from my
perspective, that we hold all the groups to the IMPP model, as Patrik
originally intended.

That much said, I don't strongly object to working around this for the APEX
presence draft. I just hope we don't also have to work around this for
SIMPLE.

- J

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:21 AM
> To: Ted Hardie; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Preparing to close APEX.
> 
> 
> hmmm.
> 
> I would like Patrik's comment on this, since he carried the 
> torch on this 
> one in Yokohama.
> 
> My impression was that the APEX Presence document *was* 
> intended to be 
> compliant with the IMPP presence description, and that it 
> probably still 
> is, but that we could not guarantee that IMPP presence 
> wouldn't change in 
> such a way that APEX presence would have to be adapted to 
> deal with it, 
> since it was not out of the IMPP group yet.
> 
> the Right solution, as opposed to the Possible solution, is 
> of course to 
> get the IMPP presence document out the door and into the RFC 
> series, so 
> that it's a stable point of reference, and APEX presence can 
> go forward 
> without any modification needed.
> 
> But with Dave Crocker actively sabotaging any attempts to 
> reach consensus 
> in IMPP, I don't hold great hope that the Right solution is 
> possible, so I 
> am willing to live with the solution as outlined.
> 
> But Jon Peterson might be in a position to have a stronger 
> opinion.....
> 
>                   Harald
> 
> --On torsdag, mars 27, 2003 16:31:14 -0800 Ted Hardie 
> <hardie@qualcomm.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi folks,
> > 	Ned and I have been talking with Pete Resnick, the chair
> > of APEX, about how to close the group.  As many of you know,
> > the group had most of its docs published as RFCs some time
> > ago, but it has one trailing document, 
> draft-ietf-apex-presence-06.txt.
> > This is currently in the RFC editor's queue.   If I understand the
> > history right here, it is waiting for the publication of the drafts
> > in IMPP, because there is an implicit reference to the presence
> > model there.  There are, in fact, no normative references 
> in the document
> > itself to work due from IMPP, but there was a working group charter
> > item to create a CPIM compliant presence and IM system.  As a result
> > of that implicit reference, it is being held.
> > 	The working group in question, however, is moribund.  There
> > is no chance that Ned, Pete, or I can see that they will actually
> > produce against this charter item, as they are not working on the
> > question of IM (or indeed anything else).  Further, the document
> > author for this, Graham Klyne, has lost his employment and is
> > not interested in working on an unfunded item at this 
> point.  Everyone
> > else has moved over to XMPP as a focus.
> > 	To clear this, Ned and I believe the right thing is to move this
> > document out from under the working group charter and make it
> > an individual submission, so that we can close the working group.
> > Perhaps more importantly, I'd like to suggest that we shift it from
> > being a proposed standard to being Experimental (since it will
> > not meet the charter item but does represent a piece of work that
> > the IESG of the time felt was sufficiently technically complete to
> > publish).  That, I would suggest, means it could go forward out
> > of the queue, since the implicit reference would be gone.
> > 	Are there any objections to us taking this road forward?
> > 		Thanks for your comments,
> > 							Ted
> >
> >
> 
>