Trouble in IMland

Gordon Mohr gojomo@usa.net
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:15:40 -0800


There are so many problems with this article I hardly know
where to begin. But I'll try anyway.

(1) "Demand for multimedia instant messaging is expected to 
    be strong"? Yeah, right. Text IM is enough for 99% of
    users. Text IM has taken off while accompanying voice/
    video apps have sat unused -- and not for lack of bandwidth
    or microphones. In fact, text IM is often *better* than 
    voice/video, since you can more easily give text IM 
    fractions of your attention.

(2) Sending files works just fine in all the popular 
    instant messengers. I expect they all do the reasonable
    thing, which is to open a direct connection between
    endpoints whenver possible, and when that's not possible,
    either fail or use a proxy. It shouldn't take until June
    to define an IM type that says, "HTTP GET/PUT the given 
    file here".

(3) The whole friggin' point of pre-IM SIP was as a 
    signalling channel to start sessions in other, more
    appropriate protocols. You mean they broke this when
    adapting SIP for IM? 

I'm willing to chalk the muddleheadedness up 50% to typical 
tech-journalism confusion, 50% to the ill-considered marriage
between SIP and IM/P initiatives.

And whatever happened to IMUnified?

Time to bring back PIP-DEMO! [*]

- Gordon

[*] http://globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-mohr-pip-pipdemo-00.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Bone" <jbone@jump.net>
To: <fork@xent.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Trouble in IMland


> 
> And the protocol wars grind on and on...  my commentary?  SIP
> was a bad idea then, and it's still a bad idea --- catchy
> evolved acronym notwithstanding.
> 
>     http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0114instantmessaging.html
> 
> jb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>