James P. Salsman (bovik@best.com)
Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Glenn Parsons wrote:
> We have finished WG last call on the Voice Messaging Client Behaviour
> document....
>
> I have asked our ADs to review these so that we can send them for an IETF
> last call.
>
> The intent is for this to become an Informational RFC.
That's excellent, but it would be much better if there were more
implementations. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the number of
VPIM clients can still be counted on one hand with finger(s) to spare.
And as far as I know, there are no open-source VPIM clients at present
-- see: http://www.google.com/search?q=source+%22vpim+client%22
-- although it is probably possible to integrate one from existing open
source programs and tools, without very much glue.
Interoperability testing could be started with an autoresponder to send
and receive VPIM-compliant messages, so that developers could check to
see that they have all the features they are supposed to have. Then
once a certain number (perhaps 6 or 7) have reported compliance using
their clients with the autoresponder, a their clients with the autoresponder, a b@ke-off could be held at the
next IETF. Please correct me if I have an inadequate understanding of
the traditional procedures for mail client testing, but it always seemed
to me that the mere announcement of interoperability testing has spurred
a great deal of development work.
I think the VPIM group has been doing a fantastic but glacial job. It
would be nice if they had the kind of visibility and support in the
corporate boardrooms that other projects seem to have received. It may
be that the tide is turning, though, as teleconferencing product stocks
are up almost as much as airline travel is down.
Cheers,
James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 04 2001 - 08:08:05 IST