Re: Sub/Not Security, Presence service identifiers

Could we address this topic after we resolve who should sign presence
notifications?  To see the need for a wrapper, you must be convinced
that the presence service must sign.

John

"Peterson, Jon" <[email protected]> writes:

> It isn't clear to me why the need for a timestamp in notifications wouldn't
> motivate us to provide a timestamp capability within PIDF, rather than
> requiring a wrapper for notifications. At least, I would think the timestamp
> should be created at the same time as the rest of the presence information,
> and that it should be managed under the same security properties as the rest
> of the presence information.
> 
> Was there some reason that a wrapper seemed more attractive? Especially
> considering that a <timestamp> element is defined in PIDF? 
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.



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