Re: On the need for presentity set identifiers

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

> Just to be clear - I am not agreeing that a presence service identifier
> needs to exist as a concept in CPIM. But in order to evaluate whether or not
> it does need to exist, we need to understand what it is you are asking for,
> and my responses in this thread have been an attempt to help flush
> that out.

Maybe I am confusing the issue by calling the thing I want a "presence
service identifier".  Let me call it instead a "presentity set
identifier".  The identifier names the set of presentities that are
identified by PRES URI's that share the same domain name part.  I
think this name is more in line with RFC 2778.  A person or service
that possesses an X.509 V3 Certificate with a PRES URI in its
subjectAltName can sign for the named presentity.  A person or service
that possesses an X.509 V3 Certificate with a presentity set
identifier in its subjectAltName can sign for any presentity that is
named by an element of the set.  The correspondence of this set with a
presence service is immaterial.

John



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