ISSUE: Determinants for timeliness missing in section 2.1

[hardie at qualcomm.com]

Dave, Harald,

In the interests of more light, less heat, for this particular list,
may I suggest that we continue discussion of the IMPP
situation either on the IETF main list or in person?  The particulars
of the situation may require public discussion, but I think the main problem
for this list has already been raised:

  It is difficult to manage dependencies between groups and
  the result of creating those dependencies may be that
  the output of a group is slower than it would be without that
  dependency or set of dependencies.

I'll send a follow-up message to the individuals on the XMPP
specifics; if they indicate there is broad interest or others indicate
broad interest, we'll explore an appropriate public forum to discuss it.

As a _very_ brief note on the subject, I last week asked the Chairs
of XMMP to hold the XMPP core documents in their queue or understand
that I will hold them in my queue prior to issuing an IETF last call.  This
is because the current XMPP charter imposes a dependency on IMPP
and there has a been a challenge by Dave and Marshall on the appropriateness
of the work project and output of IMPP.  Though the IMPP-related mechanisms
have been put into a separate document, I do not believe that the 
IETF last call
can adequately assess the set of documents if the scope is not known, that is,
we're not sure whether they are meant to be part of a mesh of cooperating
IM systems or meant to stand alone (the question of how to judge 
"completeness" in
2026 terms being critical).  Were we not about to have a face-to-face meeting,
the IESG would have considered the IMPP documents on this Thursday's
conference call, but I have held them off so we could gather community input
in Vienna.  They are on the IESG's tentative agenda for its Sunday meeting, and
I know of at least one person planning to speak to the subject at the 
IESG open mic.

Again, I believe follow-ups to this belong elsewhere; if you are interested in
following up _prior_ to Vienna, please let me know by email if you are not
on the cc list now.
			thanks,
				Ted Hardie
				(Area Advisor for XMPP & IMPP)

At 5:03 PM +0200 7/7/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
>The issue I was citing was forcing XMPP to be delayed, when there are no
>known problems with it. Citing the need to resolve IMPP matters, prior
>to processing XMPP working group output, is a very good example of a
>post-hoc requirement that is -- at very best -- only going to cause
>delay.
>
>So far, no one has stated that there are any technical problems with
>XMPP.
>
>d/
>--
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>