Presence and IntComm WG

[Jeremy George <>]

Candace,

> What do you mean in the second paragraph when you talk about limiting the 
> discussion to an area?  What area are you referring to, the issues in 
> rfc3261?

  That our job is to define and describe the tussle space based on the
realities of the technology in which we're involved.  My sense is that
"presence" is a term that already is being used in _many_ different
ways.  Dare I suggest it, some of them are even based on marketing and
little to do with presence as the ietf SIMPLE group talks about it.
Of course, there are also completely non-technical meanings of presence.
For example, she walked in the room with a arch presence.  So, I'm only
looking for the scoping limits of our discussion in the hope that such
will help us focus usefully.

  I'm groping around here.  Please push back if you think I have it wrong.

> I think identifying tussle 
> spaces is a good start, but if noone has opinions on them, it's harder to 
> represent the group.

  It's a good and open question.  Do we remain strictly neutral
or do attempt to form a consensus on which direction we want to see
implementations take?  What exactly are we trying to accomplish?  What do
folks want to do?

  SET/ON MODE=CHEERLEADER

  I think this study group is off to an excellent start on a fairly
complicated topic.  Moreover, I notice that we have new, active
contributors to the group.  This is ALL good.  That we have some
groping around isn't a bad thing; IMO, it's a good sign.  We're questioning,
as we should

  SET/OFF MODE=CHEERLEADER 

- Jeremy

--