RE: PIDF issues summary (long)

Just to be clear, the text from me you quote below argues for removing these
two sentences, not including them. So I think we agree that neither of those
sentences needs to be in the document.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 1:29 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: PIDF issues summary (long)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Couple comments inline:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: 16 October, 2002 22:33
> > To: 'Hiroyasu Sugano'; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: PIDF issues summary (long)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Some more notes inline.
> > 
> > Jon Peterson
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hiroyasu Sugano [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:38 AM
> > > To: Peterson, Jon; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: PIDF issues summary (long)
> > > 
> 
> [snip]
>  
> > 
> > I am fine removing the sentences related to 'total presence 
> > state' from my
> > original suggested text, which would probably be the 
> > following two (maybe
> > the second can stay, actually, although it is pretty self-evident):
> > 
> > If at least one tuple in the PIDF contains a <basic> <status>
> > element with a value of OPEN, then the presentity should be 
> > considered to be currently available.
> 
> I have understood this so that <status> represents the status 
> of the <contact> and not the whole presentity. Could this be 
> changed: then the presentity should be considered to be 
> currently available. -> then the presentity at the URI 
> expressed in <contact> element should be considered to be 
> currently available.  
>  
> > <contact> elements in tuples that do not 
> > declare a
> > <basic> <status> of OPEN should not, however, be presented by 
> > the watcher as
> > ways to communicate with the presentity at this time.
> > 
> 
> I do not understand why something like this would be needed 
> in the document. It should be completely application 
> dependant how applications want to treat the presence data 
> that is received from different presentities. There could be 
> text explaining that applications can decide not to present 
> <contact>s with <status><basic> missing but SHOULD NOT seems 
> to be too strong requirement. 
> 
> Best Regards
> - Mikko
> 



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