RE: On the need for presentity set identifiers

Well, if we're talking about an identifier for an agent that can deliver
presence information on behalf of a presentity, then we are talking about
exactly what A5 in the Appendix of RFC2779 considers. I think this means
that this is not a requirement that RFC2779 asks us to fulfill. I believe
that in this initial iteration of CPIM work, we aspire to address only with
what RFC2779 compels us to address.

This doesn't mean the concept of a 'presentity set identifier' is
necessarily useless or what have you. Just that I think we would be better
served by accomplishing the minimal goal set out by CPIM, and revisiting
these (clearly more complicated) issues afterward.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: 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]
> 



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