Re: Presence notification security - catching up

Adrian,

It appears to me there is a consensus by this group that there be no
standard way to identify the set of presentities associated with a
given domain.  I have described a reasonable IMPP compliant
architecture that becomes difficult to implement in the absence of
presentity set identifiers.  There appears to be a consensus by this
group not to care about implementations that use one server to provide
presence notifications for every presentity within its domain.  It is
time for me to drop this issue without agreeing to the consensus.

"Adrian Bateman" <[email protected]> writes:

> In other words, the 'minimalist' approach is that we only include
> what is necessary to make a workable 2778/2779 compliant protocol,
                              ^^^^^^^^
> but it does mean making some choices that remove ambiguity.

But the protocol won't work for implementations that use one server to
provide presence notifications for every presentity within its domain.

John



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