gmane.ietf.simple

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

2013-04-27T18:00:16

We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.


We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware


Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without 
any reviews) and we were invited to submit t

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC4480 (3596)

RFC Errata System — 2013-04-17T20:08:27

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4480,
"RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4480&eid=3596

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Ben Campbell <ben< at >nostrum.com>

Section: 5.1

Original Text
-------------
[There are 8 occurrences of the following element in the schema in section 5.1]   

      <xs:attributeGroup ref="fromUntil"/>


Corrected Text
--------------
[Each occurrence should be replaced with the following]

     <xs:attributeGroup ref="dm:fromUntil"/>


Notes
-----
fromUntil is imported from the presence data model namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model". This schema imports that namespace with a prefix of "dm". (see beginning of section 5.1)  The prefix was left off of the "fromUntil" entries.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". I

Errata and update to RFC5261

Robert Sparks — 2013-03-22T16:11:34

All -

If you haven't noticed, there's been a discussion on apps-discuss around 
updating RFC5261, and some errata posted along with that discussion.

Erik (copied) has a draft in the works that would address the errata.

See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-04#appendix-A> and
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5261&rec_status=2&presentation=records>

I recommend putting the errata into Hold for Document Update and work 
out the details as part of the development of that update.

If you are interested, please engage in the discussion on Erik's draft 
on apps-discuss (or where the ADs guide you).

RjS

test please ignore

Andrew Allen — 2013-03-11T14:25:09


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

Re: Closing the SIMPLE WG

Olle E. Johansson — 2013-02-28T08:00:54

26 feb 2013 kl. 18:17 skrev Ben Campbell <ben< at >nostrum.com>:

Thank you both!

Yes, let's try to focus on the interop issues in DISPATCH and see where that takes us.

/Olle

WG Action: Conclusion of SIP for Instant Messaging andPresenceLeveraging Extensions (simple)

IESG Secretary — 2013-02-26T20:57:37

The SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple) in the 
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area has concluded. The IESG contact 
persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.

The mailing list will remain open.

Re: Closing the SIMPLE WG

Ben Campbell — 2013-02-26T17:17:03

(As chair, for the last time)

Hi Everyone,

As Robert indicated, it's been a long, strange trip from there to here. I'd like to personally thank all of our many draft editors, contributors, and discussion participants over the last 13 years. Thanks also go to Hisham and Robert for their chair roles at various times along the way. 

SIMPLE is still a living protocol suite. Please do not hesitate to bring up issues and new ideas--that's what the DISPATCH process is all about.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks< at >nostrum.com> wrote:

Closing the SIMPLE WG

Robert Sparks — 2013-02-26T16:50:49

Folks -

With the last of SIMPLE's documents going into the RFC Editor queue,
I'm closing the group. It's been a long road since we demonstrated
running code in Pittsburg at IETF 48's IMPP meeting in the summer
of 2000. It's been great to be part of helping evolve those early ideas.

I'm sure there will be new things to do related to SIMPLE in the future, 
and
anticipate that we'll form new, focused working groups to work through them.
DISPATCH will help us find the right structure to get any new work done.

Thanks to everyone for the effort you've put into this working group over
the years. I'm proud to have been a part of it.

RjS

simple-simple

Ben Campbell — 2013-02-26T15:04:16

Hi everyone,

The simple-simple draft has been approved for publication by the IESG. Many thanks to Jonathan for his work on this, and all those who participated in its discussion!

Thanks!

Ben.

Document Action: 'SIMPLE made Simple: An Overview of theIETFSpecifications for Instant Messaging and Presence usingtheSession Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to InformationalRFC(draft-ietf-simple-simple-09.txt)

The IESG — 2013-02-25T22:51:02

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'SIMPLE made Simple: An Overview of the IETF Specifications for Instant
   Messaging and Presence using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)'
  (draft-ietf-simple-simple-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the SIP for Instant Messaging and
Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-simple-simple/




Technical Summary

The IETF has produced many specifications related to Presence and Instant Messaging with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Collectively, these specifications are known as SIMPLE - SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions.  This document serves as a guide to the SIMPLE suite of specifications.  It breaks them up into categories and explains what each is for and how they relate to each other.

Working Group Summary

This document servers as a roadmap to

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-simple-08.txt

Jonathan Rosenberg — 2013-02-16T12:37:19

Olle,

I agree with Ben's assessment above. When we started this draft, we decided
on a fairly hard definition around scope of what is included, and what is
not. We purposely are not including the many SIP extensions that apply in
general to SIP, including presence. As such, I do not think we should
include rfc6072 or 5922. Similarly I dont think a section on xcap (useful
as it might be) belongs here. I look forward to seeing your draft ;)

Thanks,
Jonathan R.



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ben Campbell <ben< at >nostrum.com> wrote:

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5261 (3477)

Erik Wilde — 2013-02-05T13:17:34

hello bjoern.

thanks a lot for the quick feedback!

On 2013-02-05 12:16 , Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

yes, you're right that this is not necessarily a correct conclusion. it 
would be really great to figure this out, though, because the 
convenience of being able to use a standard implementation cannot be 
overstated. i am writing 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-01 which is intended to 
be based on RFC 5261 (which is why am reading it very closely now), and 
it would be great to have an implementation hints section (i am 
currently writing one) that would clearly tell implementers what they 
can and cannot use. it's bad enough that you cannot use a standard XPath 
1.0 implementation; it would be great if at least XPath 2.0 would be 
usable. any insights would be greatly appreciated, i think i have to 
look closer into the XPath subset of the RFC and see whether that 
contains anything where XPath 1.0 and 2.0 differ.

in the interest of readability, 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5261 (3478)

RFC Errata System — 2013-02-07T15:40:41

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5261,
"An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath) Selectors".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5261&eid=3478

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Erik Wilde <dret< at >berkeley.edu>

Section: 4.4.3

Original Text
-------------
4.4.3. Replacing a Namespace Declaration URI


   An example for a replacement of a namespace URI:

   <replace sel="doc/namespace::pref">urn:new:xxx</replace>

   This will replace the URI value of 'pref' prefixed namespace node
   with "urn:new:xxx".  The parent node of the namespace declaration
   MUST be the <doc> element, otherwise an error occurs.

Corrected Text
--------------
4.4.3. Replacing a Namespace URI


   An example for a replacement of a namespace URI:

   <replace sel="doc/namespace::pref">urn:new:xxx</replace>

   This will replace the UR

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5261 (3477)

Bjoern Hoehrmann — 2013-02-05T11:16:58


Indeed, see <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#node-tests>, 3rd paragraph.

(I do note that this is not the only difference between XPath 1.0 and
XPath 2.0, so the conclusion that then XPath 2.0 can be used to evalu-
ate XML Patch selectors is not necessarily correct, especially if it
cannot be assumed that defaults like "Default element/type namespace"
cannot be assumed to be chosen to maximise compatibility. But that is
out of scope of the Original Text this item is concerned with.)

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5261 (3477)

RFC Errata System — 2013-02-05T10:25:14

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5261,
"An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath) Selectors".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5261&eid=3477

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Erik Wilde <dret< at >berkeley.edu>

Section: 4.2.2

Original Text
-------------
In XPath 2.0, a "bar" selector
not only matches an unqualified <bar> element, but also matches a
qualified <bar> element that is in scope of a default namespace
declaration.  In contrast, in this specification, a selector without
a prefix only matches one element, and it may match an element with
or without a prefix but only if the namespace it's qualified with (or
none) is an exact match.

Corrected Text
--------------
In XPath 2.0, a "bar" selector matches elements that have the URI of the "default element/type namespace", which is part of an XPath's stat

Feedback for SIMPLE/MSRP to XMPP interoperability

Adrian Georgescu — 2013-02-04T13:08:11

Hello,

By implementing the draft specifications for SIMPLE/MSRP to XMPP and MSRP-switch to MUC gateway we discovered several issues that we needed to tackle differently or were not addressed at all at the moment of their writing. The drafts I am referring to are:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-core-01
http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-presence-02.html
http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-im-01.html
http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-chat-03.html
http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-groupchat-01.html

As there are many comments, we made a web page to summarize them as best as we could.

http://sylkserver.ag-projects.com/projects/sylkserver/wiki/XMPP-Interop

The software implementing these drafts is now available in the public domain. I hope this feedback can be used to continue and finalize the standardization works started in those drafts. I am not sure which WG is the best place for this, so I m

Last Call: (SIMPLE madeSimple: AnOverview of the IETF Specifications for InstantMessaging andPresence using the Session Initiation Protocol(SIP)) toInformational RFC

The IESG — 2013-01-31T22:04:50

The IESG has received a request from the SIP for Instant Messaging and
Presence Leveraging Extensions WG (simple) to consider the following
document:
- 'SIMPLE made Simple: An Overview of the IETF Specifications for Instant
   Messaging and Presence using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)'
  <draft-ietf-simple-simple-08.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf< at >ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg< at >ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   The IETF has produced many specifications related to Presence and
   Instant Messaging with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).
   Collectively, these specifications are known as SIMPLE - SIP for
   Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions.  This document
   serves as a guide to the SIMPLE suite of s

Request for Publication of draft-ietf-simple-simple-08

Ben Campbell — 2013-01-31T03:56:21

Hi,

The SIMPLE working group requests publication of draft-ietf-simple-simple-08. The proto writeup follows:

------------------------------------------------------------


The RFC is intended to be informational. The title header page indicates informational.


Technical Summary

The IETF has produced many specifications related to Presence and Instant Messaging with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Collectively, these specifications are known as SIMPLE - SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions.  This document serves as a guide to the SIMPLE suite of specifications.  It breaks them up into categories and explains what each is for and how they relate to each other.

Working Group Summary

This document servers as a roadmap to the SIMPLE specifications. It introduces no technical content beyond the summaries of those specifications. While some of the referenced specifications had some degree of controversy, this draft was not controversial in itself.

Document Quality.

This docume

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-simple-08.txt

Ben Campbell — 2013-01-30T18:56:07

(as chair)

Robert has asked us to progress this as soon as possible. I plan to go ahead and do that for the existing version.

That does _not_ mean we should ignore feedback, nor should we shut down this discussion. We will just treat any further comments and discussion as if they were IETF Last Call comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:49 AM, Olle E Johanson <oej< at >edvina.net> wrote:

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-simple-08.txt

Ben Campbell — 2013-01-30T14:33:44

(As individual)

On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:49 AM, Olle E Johanson <oej< at >edvina.net> wrote:


My personal opinion is that general SIP mechanisms are out of scope for this draft. Otherwise, we could pull in most of the body of work of SIP. SIP-events is an exception, since it is core to all of the presence work. At most,we might considert a paragraph mentioning that many SIP related mechanisms can apply to SIMPLE just like any other SIP usage, perhaps with a ref to the hitchhiker's guide.


I agree that this wouldn't add value to this doc. Also, I think that's important enough of a concern to warrant its own draft :-)

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-simple-simple-08.txt

Olle E Johanson — 2013-01-30T07:49:14

29 jan 2013 kl. 15:17 skrev Ben Campbell <ben< at >nostrum.com>:


Ok, I know I had years to make a comment, but anyway :-)

I would like to see references to the SIP domain certificate specification, as it plays a role for implementors, as well as the SIP certificate management service. These should be important for anyone building SIMPLE implementations and adds some missing pieces in the SIMPLE specs.

- RFC 6072 Certificate Maangement Service for Session Initiation Protocol
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6072
- RFC 5922 Domain Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5922

Maybe we could add a clarification for newbies that "The SIP subscribe/notify mechanism is not only used in SIMPLE, but also in other event packages outside of the scope of this document."


I could possibly also add a section about the missing interoperability in presence/XCAP implementations but that propably won't help this particular document that I find has a lot of value.

See you all at SIPit