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

On 29 August 2002 20:04, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> - Using "im" as the scheme doesn't have that ambiguity, but neither 
> does it define a "means". It defines a communications medium. There 
> will presumably be a number of im implementations (means?) that are 
> cpim compatible that this could work with, but perhaps no way be 
> assuring that they can all talk to any given "im" address.
> 
> At least when using sip urls as contact addresses, it will be 
> important to be able to describe the media that the contact is willing

> to use currently. This could be done with added status values.

Well, CPIM talks about this in section 2.2. If I am giving someone my IM
address, should it be necessary for me to tell them it is
sip:[email protected]? What if my organisation changes to a different
protocol? Should I have to tell everyone again? CPIM includes the
protocol resolution mechanism so that I can just use im:.

Adrian.