Subject: [xmpp] new list for SIXPAC (SIP Interworking with XMPP in Presence Aware Clients)

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:06:36 +0800

Folks, I've created a new mailing list [email-masked] for discussion
about dual-stack SIP/XMPP user agents. Based on a breakfast meeting
yesterday at IETF 79 in Beijing, I think we've got a good core group of
people who want to work on solutions here, so if you are interested in
the topic please join the list:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sixpac

Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:25:31 +0100

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sixpac

Interesting. So I'm not the only want thinking that SIMPLE specs are bad.
I would like to know what IETF-SIMPLE people thinks about the demand
of such kind of solutions (SIP for voice + XMPP for IM/presence) as,
in their opinnion, SIMPLE is much better than XMPP.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:00:47 +0100

2010/11/11 Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>:
> So I'm not the only want

I meant  "the only one" :)

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:15:47 +0800

> in their opinnion, SIMPLE is much better than XMPP.

Pointing fingers is out of scope for the sixpac effort. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:27:12 +0100

> Pointing fingers is out of scope for the sixpac effort. :)

Sure :)

BTW I would like to know if people here (in XMPP world) knows SIMPLE
and what they think about it.
IMHO SIMPLE (in presence area) is a crazy and over-enginered
specification (people reading IETF-SIMPLE probably know my opinion),
but I would really appreciate the opinion of people involved in XMPP.

Who does demand the creation of sixpac to join SIP and XMPP? why
SIMPLE is not valid for them?

I'm not alone XD

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:35:48 +0800

> but I would really appreciate the opinion of people involved in XMPP.

I've never been one to cast stones, and I think this is off-topic for
the XMPP WG list. We've got plenty of work to do without tangents about
non-XMPP technologies.

> SIMPLE is not valid for them?

Feel free to join the sixpac list and ask folks there. But realize that
the sixpac folks have plenty of work to do and are focused on building
positive solutions, not complaining about any given technology.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:39:09 +0100

> the XMPP WG list. We've got plenty of work to do without tangents about

Sure, you are 100% right. I'm sorry.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>