Re: Sub/Not Security, Presence service identifiers

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

> Was there some reason that a wrapper seemed more attractive? Especially
> considering that a <timestamp> element is defined in PIDF? 

During some conversation on the list quite a while ago, I proposed
putting a timestamp wrapper into the PIDF document.  I was told it
belonged in the CPIM document because the information was associated
with the transport of presence information, not the information
itself.  It guess it was considered meta presence information.  As a
result, I have never thought of adding the notification operation time
as a presence element of PIDF.  I vaguely remember that Graham Kylne
had something to do with this discussion.  In any event, I have no
problem with adding the notification date as a presence element of
PIDF.  I simply thought it had to go in a wrapper.

John



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