RE: PIDF for buddylists

On 10 June 2002 20:55, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that what you are proposing is 
> > a
> > bad idea. In fact, its quite intriguing. But, its a big deviation
from 
> > PIDF today, and from the architectural model that has been the 
> > foundation of PIDF for some time (RFC 2778).
> 
> Hey, I'm happy not be be considered insane for proposing it. :-)
> 
> I reread that, and I don't think what I am suggesting does a violence 
> to that model. Of course that model doesn't suggest or imply this sort

> of implementation, but neither does it seem to prevent it. But were we

> to go in this direction it would probably be advisable to discuss 
> these concepts specifically.

Don't forget that 2778/2779 only defined the base
vocabulary/requirements. CPIM/PIDF/etc define the implementation
decisions taken to produce our standard IMPP that fits the model.

Adrian.





  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]