Improving PIDF

Following up on our discussion in Atlanta last week, in line with neatly
separating the CPIM draft into three separate drafts, we need to split PIDF
into two.  As I mentioned last week, I'm not suggesting any functionality or
content changes.  We need all the content, just in two separate drafts.

The logic behind this is that PIDF essentially contains two things:

a) a format to carry any type of presence data (generally speaking that is
the <presence> and <tuple> elements)
b) a set of attributes or presence schema pertaining to IM or perhaps more
broadly interpreted "communications presence" (that is nearly everything
inside the tuple, except e.g. timestamp)

It doesn't make sense to mandate that all presence documents that use (a),
need to carry the elements in (b), of which indeed some are mandatory.  For
example, a tuple that publishes one's location doesn't necessarily need a
"status" field.

Also, the separation between the presence format, and particular attribute
schemata will serve as a good example on how to add new schemata to cover
other applications.  (e.g. the SIMPLE WG is working on a similar item
[draft-lonnfors-simple-prescaps-ext-00]).

Lastly, we can better focus the main PIDF draft on issues related to joining
and splitting PI documents without needing to worry about what is in them at
the same time.

Having said that, I've performed this split and made the two resulting
drafts available here:

http://www.diacakis.com/impp/draft-diacakis-ietf-impp-cpp-pidf-00.txt
http://www.diacakis.com/impp/draft-diacakis-ietf-impp-cpp-pidf-im-00.txt

In addition to the split, while I was at it, I added two more changes:
- Jonathan's "zero or more tuples" - I presume there are no objections to
that
- Misc fixes replacing CPIM with CPP & CPIM as necessary

After this is scrutinized and if there are no objections, I would propose to
make those two docs WG drafts.

Thanos
---
Thanos Diacakis
Openwave Systems
[email protected]
+1-303 385 6705







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