On 8 Nov 2018 7:59 pm, "Nico Williams" <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:41:57PM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:So? We "own" it anyways. But the real question is: can we continue
> > Perhaps the IETF needs to admit defeat here...
>
> my memory is that xmpp was originaly brought into the ietf to be rubber
> stamped.
using it for remote participation. My impression was that Mark N. meant
that we should accept that XMPP is no longer viable for that purpose.
Meetecho is effectively yet another an IM w/ audiovideo platform. There
are others (all proprietary, I think, but at least parts(?) of Discord
are open). Like everything else in the IM space post-XMPP, it's a
symptom of the balkanization of IM in the absence of a widely adopted
and used IM standard. More than that, I think this means that the
market does not want an IM standard. Pity. I'd rather have a standard.
The consumer market is dominated by a set of large, well-funded companies with a vested interest in ensuring there is no standard.
This isn't the case in most - less visible - markets, although not all markets have picked the same standard. The business/corporate world has mostly picked Slack (with some Skype for Business - which is itself XMPP and SIP/SIMPLE capable I think), the OSS project world still mostly revolves around IRC, with a bit of Discord and others at the fringes. Several markets have adopted XMPP, though, both for IM and for general structured realtime messaging. Many more players have adopted it in part (usually C2S only) to gain access to some market, and then dropped it (witness Slack, Facebook, Google, etc).
Unless Meetecho has changed dramatically, it, too, is "just" another XMPP implementation.
Dave.
Nico
--
