Re: Preparing to close APEX.

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

Hi Harald,

On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 01:20 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> hmmm.
>
> I would like Patrik's comment on this, since he carried the torch on 
> this one in Yokohama.
I've forwarded your note to Patrik, and invited him to respond either 
directly to me
or to the IESG list.  Please note, though, that he's a much nicer guy 
than me and my
view may be harsher than his.

> 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.
I think there is a pronoun/antecedent question here.  It's clear to me 
that those writing
the charter intended the APEX series to follow CPIM.  Those writing the 
draft pretty
clearly made an attempt not to need a normative reference to the CPIM 
work.  I think
they wanted to make APEX more general purpose, and I more than strongly 
suspect
that they saw waiting on CPIM to be approximately as effective as 
waiting on Godot.
We haven't proved them wrong 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.
Let me repeat:  there is no normative reference in the document to the 
IMPP presence document.
The reference is implicit, or would need to be added.  If it went 
forward without modification now,
it would have no stable reference to the IMPP presence document.

Also to repeat a major point:  this is a failure.  APEX will never 
create a CPIM compliant IM
and presence system.  The IM work will not happen.  APEX without the 
CPIM stuff may well
be reused.  I see documenting the work that was done on presence as 
Experimental as
a useful exercise in institutional memory, but that is all.

> 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.
Thanks for being willing to live with this solution.  On the IMPP side, 
I've talked
to the chairs and to Ned on a possible way forward on this issue, and 
we should
know within a few weeks whether the chairs can start executing on it.
						regards,
								Ted