RE: Is cpim-srv document necessary at all? (Re: NAPTR and CPIM)

Why should it be?

I could have an im address that looks like:

im:[email protected]

that may translate to many forms. eg:

sip:[email protected]

or

xmpp:[email protected].

These things are local policy at the target domain. Common sense says that all should be the same, but this "should" is only to make life easier for users, but not a technical requirement.

Regards,
Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Tony Hansen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 6:39 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Is cpim-srv document necessary at all? (Re: 
> NAPTR and CPIM)
> 
> 
> below
> 
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> > I am taking it a step further. My point was that SRV can't even do 
> > im:user@domain1 to XYZ:user@domain2, BECAUSE the 
> translation might need 
> > to be more complex than that  - i.e., a user name change. 
> Thus, ALL that 
> > SRV does is tell you the server to deliver the request to, and that 
> > request is sent with the im URI intact, not translated. 
> Once it arrives 
> > at the server, it can translate the URI according to some 
> local policy.
> 
> I'm not convinced that more complex translations are necessry.
> 
> If you're going to advertise an im: URI, it should already be 
> using the 
> appropriate username for the protocol and domain that the SRV 
> is going 
> to be doing the mapping into.
> 
> 	Tony Hansen
> 	[email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> discussions, please]
> 
> 
> 



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