[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Preparing to close APEX.

Hi Jon,
	Since there are a number of messages crossing in the air
here, let me ask you what I just asked Patrik:

	Are you willing to live with the way forward proposed:
closing the working group, moving the remaining draft to
individual submission, and shifting its status to Experimental?

	Note that, as was said in some of the previous messages, that
there are no normative references in the existing work to CPIM.
Any addition of such at this stage would need to come from new
authors willing to revise the documents for a presence and IM
service that no one expects ever to exist.   This would also require
that person to hold the pen as an individual while this inserted
dangling reference was cleared up.
					regards,
							Ted

On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 10:45 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
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