Presence and IntComm WG

[Peter Saint-Andre <>]

Dennis Baron wrote:

> > FWIW, XMPP has native federation, many rich presence extensions, and a 
> > robust publish-subscribe technology...
>
> I agree that the federation is there - but I think we need decide if
> we want to promote a common addressing scheme - ala. SIP.edu.  It
> seems like we should to me - but of course I'm biased - I'd be
> interested if others think there are reasons not to.

It's important to put some thought into "smart federation". Different 
organizations deploy these technologies in different ways. We have a 
very open federation model on the open XMPP network, but we have also 
recently deployed an intermediate certification authority that issues 
free digitial certificates to server admins, which you folks are welcome 
to use (perhaps accept connections only from other entities that have 
certificates). Another model would be for Internet2 to run its own CA. 
Another model might be used in say the financial industry, where 
business level agreements would be hammered out in advance between 
companies that want to interoperate. But it seems to me that the old 
"we'll connect with anyone" model of email is simply unacceptable these 
days, and that organizations want to federate in a more intelligent 
fashion this time around (i.e., for real-time communication).

> > I find the focus on commercial vendors puzzling.
>
> Well, in part this is keeping the Internet2 corporate members engaged.
> But I think the larger goal is to have systems that interoperate and
> provide expanded functionality across platforms - both server and
> client.  I think we should offer an open-source "package" or cookbook
> that campuses can deploy.  How much the group can build will depend on
> the resources that we can muster.  And for some campuses there are
> advantages to being able to just "buy" a commercial package.  Ideally
> they should be able to take this route without loosing any
> interoperability with other campuses.  Similarly, users should be able
> to choose open-source or commercial clients without loss.

Yes, and that's the beauty of open standards. :)

> I think you're other comments were in response to the older "Features
> List" - which I think was done before we decided to re-focus on
> promoting XMPP-based deployment.

I think you're right. Perhaps I followed one link too many...

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature