From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
--On Monday, 26 March, 2007 11:02 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
Observation: Many IETF-ers have entries in Linked-In ...
Regret: We did not get out ahead of the curve with Instant
Messaging.
We should have done Jabber in 1995.
Depends on what you count and a whole series of questions
about timing and expectations. SEND/ SAML/ SOML provided a
network-based "instant message" facility by 1982. The TALK
protocol dates from very early version of U**x.
By 'getting ahead of' I meant in deployment. Clearly IRC was on the table and
successful. But not really ready for prime time (and still is not).
And, until
people started considering it to be a security and privacy
risk, the finger protocol provided a fairly decent indication
of presence.
The response to the security issues was to drop the protocol entirely, not fix
it.
Of course, as soon as you tied your identity to email
addresses and domain names, you get entangled with the
identifier internationalization issues that were discussed in last
Thursday's plenary. Perhaps using an internationalized
identifier, by itself, increases the odds that the only
people who are likely to be able to try to contact you are
already part of your social (or at least cultural and
linguistic) network, but I doubt that is what you had in mind.
I don't quite see I18N issues the same way. I think that we can have muiltiple
addresses.
For practical purposes we accept a restriction in the telephone world to the
numbers 0-9 with a couple of control characters (+, *, #). I suspect we end up
with a practical requirement for a LATIN-1 plus alphanum address as a commonly
supported minimum standard indefinitely.
If I can also be reached via a UNICODE address so much the better.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf