2010/5/17 Adrian Georgescu <[email protected]>: > The specs may lack but the real problem is adoption in the real world. > > Most of the SIMPLE implementations are happening behind closed doors and are > driven by IMS like deployments that have not come to term yet. The number of > these implementations grown steadily if you get the statistics from SIPITs > and meet the vendors in person.
Note that all those implementations are based on OMA/RCS specs, something more "elaborated" than the IETF RFC's about SIMPLE and XCAP (too much wide specs, not strict at all). > Commercial clients are available, Zoiper now implements full support for XCAP > and Publish method. CounterPath latest build is working finally against > OpenXCAP. Latest Snom software release 8 stores the contacts in XCAP server. Yes, but I'm sure that all those vendors will make their devices to work with a specific XCAP server and presence server, most probably interoperability between different devices sharing the same SIP account adn XCAP resources will never happen (as SIMPLE/XCAP doesn't define a *definitive* and *strict* XML format). > Open source related, Ekiga and SIP Communicator are currently developing > support for XCAP. Idem. It's just an illusion. "Implementing XCAP" doesn't mean being interoperable. > Related to Inaki's efforts to make a change, I am sure he can make a great > contribution. SIP however as it is deployed today cannot be used reliably > for any form of remote storage of data as long as TLS is not mandatory. Sure. However SIP over TCP/TLS is already specificied. Adding this sane constrain to a new SIP based presence specification would be acceptable IMHO. Regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
