Subject: [Simple] SIMPLE BoF agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:14:06 -0700

Enclosed find the proposed agenda for the SIMPLE BoF at 50th IETF in
Minneapolis - as the WG charter is still under review, SIMPLE will meet as a
BoF. The cut-off for agenda submissions is Monday the 26th, so please
provide any feedback by Friday if possible.

Jon Peterson
Level(3) Communications

-------

SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE)
BoF

Day, Date and Time
=================================================================

Chair(s):
  Jon Peterson ([email-masked])

The SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions
(SIMPLE) BoF session will investigate ongoing work towards the
standardization of SIP for presence as a transfer protocol supported
within the Common Format for Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM)
framework. 

Suggested reading:

SIP for presence:
---------------
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-impp-im-00.txt
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-impp-presence-00.txt
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-impp-qauth-00.txt

CPIM:
-----
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2779.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt-00.txt

SIP Events:
----------
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-roach-sip-subscribe-notify-03.t
xt

Proposed agenda:

1. SIP for IM&P overview
2. Updates on SIP for presence drafts
3. Ongoing CPIM work (including msgfmt) and its relevance to SIP for IM&P
4. Update on working group status & charter
5. Open issues discussion
	- QAUTH
	- Firewall traversal

---

From: James Undery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:00:40 +0000

> within the Common Format for Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM)

Are these drafts going to be updated, to reflect previous discussions in San
Deigo, like disallowing multiple contacts, no presence info in the 200 and an
immediate NOTIFY with the info. As well as mistakes in the examples of the
drafts using the "method" parameter instead of the "methods" parameter and the
presence draft also describes SIP registration wrong in section 5.1 etc.

James Undery

---

From: "Adam B. Roach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:36:54 -0600 (CST)

>presence draft also describes SIP registration wrong in section 5.1 etc.

Nope. You're to first to figure it out: we're done.

(In case your sarcasm circuits aren't tuned up: of course they'll be
updated.)

-- 
Adam Roach, Ericsson Inc. |  Ph: +1 972 583 7594 | 1010 E. Arapaho, MS L-04
[email-masked]   | Fax: +1 972 669 0154 | Richardson, TX 75081 USA

---

From: James Undery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:55:09 +0000 (GMT)

> (In case your sarcasm circuits aren't tuned up: of course they'll be

Thanks I am quite good at spotting low wit.

Will they also address the information leakage in section 4 of the
presence draft, The bizare accept rule in section 5.5.1, reference where a
202 Subscription Pending in 5.5.2 comes from. Solve the cut and paste
mismatch later in that section, Swap the will for a MAY in 5.6 so it is
consistent with SIP (and 7.2 and examples), loosen the CSeq requirements
in line with SIP.

In time to read through it in a meaningful manner as the drafts expired in
December, and I feel I may be wasting my time and yours pointing out
mistakes that have been corrected months ago.

James Undery