[OpenSIPS-Users] SIP Presence Aggregation Issue

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Iñaki,

No worry,  no rudeness  felt ;)

I guess everybody feels a bit (or more) frustrated about the current 
SIMPLE situation.

I'm really interested to see the outcome of your specs - my question is 
(assuming that from tech point of view, it is a good approach), how do 
you foresee the wide spreading of the specs ?

Regards,
Bogdan

PS: if you need help on the specs or testing, let me know ;)

Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/4/12 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at voice-system.ro>:
>   
>> Hi Iñaki,
>>
>>     
> Hi Bogdan, replies inline:
>
>
>   
>> well, right now there is a kind of pressure coming from the providers
>> level - providers do want to offer presence with SIP ; also presence
>> comes in a natural way of doing dome enhanced  services (more complex
>> than simple BLA, BLF, etc).  -- please note I said presence, not SIMPLE.
>>
>> So, a natural demand for it there, and we, as developers, are looking
>> for solutions to make it happened. and for implementations you need some
>> specs.
>>
>> Now, if you see the SIMPLE specs are wrong - it might be - I'm not
>> directly involved in the depth of SIMPLE to be able to say yes or no.
>> This "aggregation" problem is the first we encountered during  some
>> projects - not only once, but several times, different contexts  ; and
>> I'm trying with Anca to see how to get over it.
>>
>> So, overall, there are 2 options (according to your perception):
>>    - use SIMPLE and get a poor result (a crippled  presence)
>>     
>
> SIMPLE is not just poor, but also inneficient at server level (a
> single change in a XCAP document requires the presence server to
> reload all the permissions for that user).
> Even in case of solving it, the result owuld be poor, sure.
>
>
>   
>>    - come up with a new spec
>>     
>
> Yes. I'm doing a presence spec for SIP from scratch, by learning about
> XMPP and so. I've already defined the concept of "resources",
> "different status priority", "global status". And best of all, there
> is no HTTP/XCAP, but just SIP. Well, I have to spent lot of hours yet
> :)
>
>
>   
>>    - do feedback to IETF to make SIMPLE simpler and working
>>     
>
> IMHO this is not possible at this point, as IETF already chose XCAP
> for buddies and permissions management (along with others). IMHO there
> is no way to improve/fix current SIMPLE specs.
>
>
>
>   
>> For SIMPLE, looking at the basics (exchanging the info), the aggregation
>> is the biggest issue I see. Whatever is on top (RLS, XCAP, buddy lists,
>> etc) is another story and it might need a second look and thought.
>>     
>
> OMA tries to define an aggregation mechanism (like rules). I've read
> it, and it's a pain, a dirty hack over IETF *incomplete*
> specifications.
>
>
> Sorry for sounding so rude :)
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
www.voice-system.ro