Presence and IntComm WG

[Jeremy George <>]

  You all are way ahead of me.  As I see it this group's task is to inform
the debate among stakeholders and perhaps the engineers who will implement
PIC/ALS with technology reality, not to engage in the tussle itself.
The members of this group probably have political feelings all over
the map.  I don't think we need to hide our leanings necessarily but I
hope this effort doesn't snag on party affiliation.  It isn't relevant
in this limited context.

  I'm still trying to get a handle on scope and framework.  The PIC
charter is based on rfc3261 and extensions.  Yes, we play a bit loose
with ALS, but I note geopriv hasn't produced rfc's yet and their work
is certainly sip-like.  So, I suggest we limit our discussion to this
area and not get into generalized notions.  Presence and its mechanisms,
for example, are fairly well documented.

  When we have a reasonably good sense of that much, then the writers
can go off in a corner and do their thing.  Even that may be too broad
a topic though.  Note that we have begun by looking at a decentralized vs
a centralized architecture for presence.  I'm pretty sure that tussle
space will work out to be subtly, but importantly, different for
VoIP, IM and maybe ALS.

  Do we want just to identify likely tussle spaces before we work through
them?  Anonymity vs identification is another.  Some have suggested
asserting an ability to lie about location (as opposed to just limiting
specificity.)  There was a strong debate about that within the ietf.
Is this a tussle space?  Others?

- Jeremy

--