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

Paul wrote:
> 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.

I would support to work out standardized <status> values for SIP URIs in SIPPING.

Thanks,
Krisztian



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