RE: PIDF issues summary (long)

Hi,

Yes, we agree. Thanks for clarifying this.

- Mikko

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 18 October, 2002 09:34
> To: Lonnfors Mikko (NRC/Helsinki); [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: 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]