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

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Adrian wrote:
> > 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:.
> 
> Instant Messaging as communication mean is not a good example here as it
> is quite straightforward. If I want to publish it, it is logical to use
> 'im:' and no more status extension needed.
> Voice, video, chat or game are better examples as probably all of them
> will have SIP contacts.

I agree!

The logical conclusion of what Adrian is saying is that eventually there ought to be a bunch of url schemes:

	im:	for instant messaging
	voice:	for voice with email style addresses
	tel:	for voice with e.164 style addresses
	video:	for video
	game:	for gaming

Then the PIDF for pres:foo@bar might look something like:

      <tuple id="a67uyt76">
        <status>
          <basic>open</basic>
        </status>
        <contact>im:foo@bar</contact>
      </tuple>
      <tuple id="a67uyt77">
        <status>
          <basic>open</basic>
        </status>
        <contact>voice:foo@bar</contact>
      </tuple>
      <tuple id="a67uyt78">
        <status>
          <basic>open</basic>
        </status>
        <contact>video:foo@bar</contact>
      </tuple>

even when all of these distinct urls end up being mapped to sip:foo@bar by a sip based implementation. One trouble with this is that we end up with this silly proliferation of schemes. Another is that it then obscures the fact that all of these communication means are available *together* via a single address and may be used together in a single session.

If voice and video are available together, then I want presence to reflect that.

	Paul



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