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

Re: XMPP Compatibility




Note that Harald & I were co-chairs of IMPP when CPIM
and MSGFMT were baking; these are *exactly* the arguments
that went into its creation.  It would be worthwhile
to review the IMPP mailing list archive to see why
the IMPP wg headed the way it did with specific headers.

That said, I think there are some real architectural
arguments that can be put forward here.  Perhaps even
an IAB considerations document -- if (and only if) it could
produce something that raised awareness for XMPP and SIMPLE,
and would be useful to them.

Leslie.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Eric,

it's been fun watching you and Jon reconstruct the five years of arguments behind the IMPP strategy (transport/content split, end-to-end security, consistent semantics across systems) in a few short messages.

You've certainly touched on many of the points that have made me say that Marshall Rose's "let them fly independently" argument is wrong, and that we do need messaging systems that don't need content-transforming gateways.

But in the final analysis, discussing this in the IESG and IAB won't carry the day; in the end this argument has to be carried to the XMPP list.

Have you been there with it?

Harald


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
    Yours to discover."
                               -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------