RE: number of tuples

Hi,

I think Jonathan's proposal is quite reasonable and also usable.
Some comments inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 27 November, 2002 11:00
> To: 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: number of tuples
> 
> 
> I do have one small reservation about this.
> 
> Clearly, being "out to lunch" suggests that you are not available.
> Considering that an automaton, for whatever reason, might be 
> attempting to
> ascertain your presence, it would better to provide a more 
> easily digestible
> state - one could argue that "out to lunch" is reducible to 
> CLOSED in most
> circumstances, and that therefore it should appear in a <tuple>. While
> currently <note> can appear as a child of either <presence> 
> or <tuple>, I
> don't think the possibility of using <note> in <presence> was 
> intended to
> provide an alternative to <status>, a kind of out-of-band and
> non-interoperable means of expressing status info.

I think that wasn't Jonathans point i.e. to use <note> as status extension. The semantic of <note> should be similar regardless of the number of tuples present in the presence document. In this case it would be just human readable text. 

The key point here is not whether 'out to lunch', 'on honeymoon', or 'I am feeling good' is reducible to some <status> inside some tuple. I would say that <note> as child element to <presence> has noting to do with individual tuples and there can be some cases where presentity would like to publish only a general note without any tuples. 

Evidently, zero number of tuples means that there are no communication means to contact the presentity. This should be enough for gateways/endpoints to figure out that presentity cannot be contacted.

- Mikko

> I always 
> assumed <note>
> was comparable to an 'away message' in existing IM systems - 
> but in PIDF
> that would presumably accompany an away <status> in a <tuple>.
> 
> Are there other motivating examples in which a <note> would 
> appear as a
> child of <presence> in which it does not effectively rephrase 
> a <status>,
> and in which there would be no need for any <tuple>s?
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 2:51 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: number of tuples
> > 
> > 
> > I raised this issue during the IETF meeting, and was asked 
> to take it to 
> > the list.
> > 
> > PIDF currently specifies that a presence document has to 
> have ONE or 
> > more tuples [emphasis added]. I requested a change so that 
> this could be 
> > ZERO or more tuples. Why? Because its reasonable to have 
> presence state 
> > which contains just a note:
> > 
> > <presence entity="im:[email protected]">
> >    <note>Out to Lunch</note>
> > </presence>
> > 
> > Does anyone see any problems with this?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan R.
> > -- 
> > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
> > Chief Scientist                             First Floor
> > dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
> > [email protected]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> > http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> > http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> > discussions, please]
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> discussions, please]
> 
> 
> 



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