RE: Preparing to close APEX.

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

Just to be clear, Dave is not holding the pen on any of the IMPP documents.
He and I are co-authors the core three documents, but since Yokohama I have
been the editor of those drafts.

And as an update, the editor of PIDF produced a new version of that document
this morning. From what I can tell, this document is also now ready for IETF
last call, which means the whole bundle could now go before the IESG. I'd
expect that Mark and Derek will be requesting that last call from Ted
shortly. So, provided there are no new concerns raised in that last call, I
wouldn't see any need to back the APEX draft away from CPIM.

- J

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:41 AM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: IESG
> Subject: Re: Preparing to close APEX.
> 
> 
> 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
>