Re: Presence service identifiers

At 01:49 AM 7/21/02 -0400, John D. Ramsdell wrote:
>I just realized that one can save a lot of hassle by requiring that a
>presentity's identifier can be used to derive the presence service
>identifier of the service that provides subscriptions to the
>presentity.  I suggest we follow the SIMP rule.  A presence URI that
>specifies a presentity may not have a local part of 'notifier', and
>the presence service identifier associated with a presentity is
>derived from it by replacing the local part with the string
>'notifier'.  A presence URI specifies a presence service only if its
>local part is the string 'notifier'.

Why do we need to specifically identify the presence service here?  I have 
a feeling that this may be over-prescriptive for the role that CPIM is 
aiming to perform.  I'm very uneasy about making arbitrary restrictions on 
allowed URIs.

It seems to me that the presence service is implicitly that for the domain 
of the presentity -- the presentity identifier indicates a service, which 
is the same service for different presentities in the same domain.

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email protected]>



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