RE: Preparing to close APEX.

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

Like I said before, I don't object to working around IMPP for the APEX
presence draft. Something like Experimental or Historical status seems like
the right way to handle this - agreed that getting it off the standards
track is a good idea.

- J

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:04 AM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: 'Patrik Fältström'; IESG
> Subject: 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
> >>
> >
>