Presence and IntComm WG

["Ben Chinowsky" <>]

*Action Items as of February 7*

(high priority)
[ACTION] (1/4) Prashant will send out some links on how XMPP relates to
federations.
[ACTION] (12/14) Rodger and Prashant will further discuss how CampusEAI could
participate in PIC.
[ACTION] (9/7) Mark will post his presence-agent code on the web.
[ACTION] (8/24 - in progress) Mark will see if he can find interest in the
presence-agent project on the Psi developers' list.
[ACTION] (5/18) Mark will evaluate prospects for modifying the calendar-
integration code written by Ben T.'s 2005 SoC student, to drive XMPP presence.

(medium priority)
[ACTION] (8/31) Dennis will contact Skyhook for more information.
[ACTION] (8/3) Rodger will put a discussion of current vendor offerings in the
location-services space on the agenda for a future call.
[ACTION] (in progress) Rodger and Joe will write up some use cases
for enterprise federations.

*Attendees*

Rodger Will (chair) - Ford
Joe Rork - Ford
Mark Sirota - Penn
Deke Kassabian - Penn
Candace Holman - Harvard
Dennis Baron - MIT
Jonathan Tyman - Internet2
Neal McBurnett - Internet2
Ben Chinowsky (scribe) - Internet2

*Discussion*

Rodger noted that he met earlier in the day with Dennis, Deke, Tyler, and
Jonathan. PIC.edu was well-received, and Jonathan has been assigned to be the
new flywheel for the PIC working group, replacing Ben Teitelbaum. There was
general agreement in this meeting that the next step is to get Candace's 
PIC.edu
doc ready for distribution, in particular including some deployment 
milestones.

Most of the call was devoted to a discussion of Deke's question about PIC.edu:
> Is this really first and foremost about inter-institutional presence?
> That is, are we looking to emphasize and explore the "P" in our name
> rather than the "IC" in our name?

There was general agreement that, *for now*, the answer is yes. The initial
version of PIC.edu will not include gateways, SIP/SIMPLE, or means of
communication other than IM. At the same time, there was agreement that the
project will not be "about" XMPP and IM. We're using XMPP and IM because they
provide a straightforward way to deploy interdomain presence. Protocol
independence (via gateways or multiprotocol clients) and support for 
additional
forms of communication (e.g. voice and video) will be added later.

There was also general agreement that PIC should not build its own client.
Dennis noted that the Jive/Spark client has been released for beta; it's
supposed to support both XMPP and SIP.