Re: Preparing to close APEX.

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

Hi Patrik,
	I'm a little unclear on whether you agreeing with Harald's point on
Dave also implies you agree with his willingness to live with the 
solution
outlined.
	To review: the proposal is to move this trailing doc out from the
WG's plate, close the working group, shift this doc to Experimental,
and let it go out.
	I actually disagree that this group should be treated the same
way as XMPP and SIMPLE for the very basic reason that they aren't
dead.  XMPP and SIMPLE intend to create standards-track IM and
Presence systems; APEX no longer has any such intention.   By shifting
this off the standards track, I think we signal that APEX has left the
building while retaining the institutional knowledge gained.  I hope
you can agree with that as a way forward.
	And don't worry, I already warned everyone I wasn't as nice a
guy as you!
				best,
					Ted Hardie



On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 09:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> Harald wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> Yes.
>
> > > 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.
> Exactly.
>
> > > 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.
> Not only that, if I understand things correct from Yokohama and the 
> fall of 2002, Dave is also editor of some documents, which means he is 
> blocking it in multiple ways.
>
> > > But Jon Peterson might be in a position to have a stronger 
> > > opinion.....
> Yes, SIMPLE should be treated the same way as APEX. Both are waiting 
> for the IMPP document(s) and so will XMPP.
>
>   paf