Re: Communication means in draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05

"Peterson, Jon" wrote:
> 
> As I said, and as you agree below, this really has no bearing on PIDF. While
> I'm interested in this issue as an academic matter (we encountered a similar
> question in ENUM), we have more pressing matters at hand in the IMPP WG. I
> suggest you raise the matter in SIPPING or SIMPLE if you really want to
> pursue it - at best, this is applicable to how SIP would use the PIDF
> format. That much said, despite your arguments below I don't think there's
> any value in moving capability information out of the SIP and SDP standards,
> where it is currently adequate in my opinion, and into something like PIDF.

I think we are in agreement, so I will shut up after one last question:

What is the proper venue for definition of new <status> values to be used for application of presence specifically to SIP or SIMPLE? 

To me it makes sense that values affecting SIP use of presence should be done in SIPPING, and those affecting SIMPLE use of presence should be done in either SIMPLE or SIPPING. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to do those definitions in IMPP because PIDF need to be changed at all to use values defined elsewhere.

	Paul



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