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

Hi, 

inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 02 September, 2002 23:28
> To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP/Helsinki); [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Communication means in draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05
>  
> But neither 'id' nor <contact> is actually intended to provide device
> capability. An 'id' of 'mobile-phone' (which appears in the example in
> 4.2.2) implies that the device that generated this tuple 
> could make voice
> calls, but some mobile phones also support IM, and even video.
> 'mobile-phone' certainly isn't sufficient to communicate capability by
> itself (a principal might also have several devices that 
> could characterize
> themselves as 'mobile-phone', which is another complication). 
> Similarly, the
> definition of <contact> in cpim-pidf-05 is much more 
> restricted than that
> given in RFC2778/RFC2779 - pidf-05 allows only a URI in a 
> <contact> element,
> whereas the framework and requirements RFCs speak to postal 
> addresses and
> the like.

draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05 seems pretty clear about the usage of tuple id.
Section 4.2 says:
" The <tuple> element MUST contain an 'id' attribute which is used to
   distinguish this tuple from other tuples in the same XML document.
   The value of an 'id' attribute MUST be unique within 'id' attribute
   values of other tuples in the same document.  An 'id' value is used
   by applications processing the presence document to identify the
   corresponding tuple in the previously acquired PRESENCE INFORMATION
   of the same PRESENTITY. The value of the 'id' attribute SHOULD be
   treated as just a CDATA value (no semantics)."

So, having a requirement that tuple ID must be unique across a presence document and it should not have any semantics then it would be impossible to have two different tuples for one attribute/communication capability. Therefore tuple ID seems definitely be the wrong place for this information. Also it would be nice if examples in draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05 could be changed to reflect what specifications states in section 4.2.

best regards
- Mikko

> So, I agree that the motivation for tuples needs to be made 
> explicit in the
> draft (probably in Section 2, as a clarification or expansion 
> on 2.1 (a)),
> and that some better guidance needs to be given on how the 
> <tuple> 'id'
> attribute should be constructed in 4.1.2.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
> 



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