Hi Iñaki, No worry, no rudeness felt ;)
I guess everybody feels a bit (or more) frustrated about the current SIMPLE situation. I'm really interested to see the outcome of your specs - my question is (assuming that from tech point of view, it is a good approach), how do you foresee the wide spreading of the specs ? Regards, Bogdan PS: if you need help on the specs or testing, let me know ;) Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2010/4/12 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Iñaki, >> >> > Hi Bogdan, replies inline: > > > >> well, right now there is a kind of pressure coming from the providers >> level - providers do want to offer presence with SIP ; also presence >> comes in a natural way of doing dome enhanced services (more complex >> than simple BLA, BLF, etc). -- please note I said presence, not SIMPLE. >> >> So, a natural demand for it there, and we, as developers, are looking >> for solutions to make it happened. and for implementations you need some >> specs. >> >> Now, if you see the SIMPLE specs are wrong - it might be - I'm not >> directly involved in the depth of SIMPLE to be able to say yes or no. >> This "aggregation" problem is the first we encountered during some >> projects - not only once, but several times, different contexts ; and >> I'm trying with Anca to see how to get over it. >> >> So, overall, there are 2 options (according to your perception): >> - use SIMPLE and get a poor result (a crippled presence) >> > > SIMPLE is not just poor, but also inneficient at server level (a > single change in a XCAP document requires the presence server to > reload all the permissions for that user). > Even in case of solving it, the result owuld be poor, sure. > > > >> - come up with a new spec >> > > Yes. I'm doing a presence spec for SIP from scratch, by learning about > XMPP and so. I've already defined the concept of "resources", > "different status priority", "global status". And best of all, there > is no HTTP/XCAP, but just SIP. Well, I have to spent lot of hours yet > :) > > > >> - do feedback to IETF to make SIMPLE simpler and working >> > > IMHO this is not possible at this point, as IETF already chose XCAP > for buddies and permissions management (along with others). IMHO there > is no way to improve/fix current SIMPLE specs. > > > > >> For SIMPLE, looking at the basics (exchanging the info), the aggregation >> is the biggest issue I see. Whatever is on top (RLS, XCAP, buddy lists, >> etc) is another story and it might need a second look and thought. >> > > OMA tries to define an aggregation mechanism (like rules). I've read > it, and it's a pain, a dirty hack over IETF *incomplete* > specifications. > > > Sorry for sounding so rude :) > > > > > -- Bogdan-Andrei Iancu www.voice-system.ro _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
