Presence and IntComm WG

[Jesse Thompson <>]

Sean Dilda wrote:
> Jorj Bauer wrote:
> 
>>
>> The discussion turns to the direction of the pic.edu project; this
>> seems to line up with pic.edu's goals. OpenFire should be our
>> standard, with tiered service; Penn might provide resources to the
>> development effort.
>>
> 
>>   MG: does it have to be OpenFire? What does it mean to pic.edu if
>>   we're cobbling together a proof of concept? The choice of OpenFire
>>   should be the supported recommendation for pic; tiered service. If
>>   you want to just communicate, you use whatever version you like; for
>>   level 2, you need to use version X of our server.
>>
> 
> Am I reading this correctly?  It sounds like from this that you're
> wanting to make it so that if a university is to take part in pic.edu,
> that they not only have to run OpenFire, but your version of OpenFire.
>  Shouldn't this be a little more open?
> 
> Here at Duke we're happily running ejabberd for our xmpp service.  When
> pic.edu is up and running, there's a decent chance we'll want to
> participate.  In the mean time, we're continuing to build our IM and
> presence offerings for our current needs.  As such, when pic.edu is up
> and running, we may not be in a position to easily switch XMPP backends.

Openfire isn't capable of hosting our environment because it doesn't do
virtual domains.  We also use ejabberd.

Pardon my ignorance, I'll have to read up what pic.edu actually entails,
but can't these features be specified in an XEP so that they can be
implemented on other servers too?

What happens if Jive Software closes up shop or is bought out by a
company like AOL?  I have the same hesitation with Zimbra.  Everyone
seemed to treat it like an open source project...until Yahoo bought
it...and then MS threatened to buy Yahoo...

Jesse

-- 
  Jesse Thompson
  Email/IM:

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