Re: Attempt to summarize various threads

I agree on all points.

-Jonathan R.

Mark Day wrote:
> Here's my attempt at summarizing the current state of discussions and
> apparent rough consensus:
> 
> 1. Is cpim-srv necessary? Yes.
> 
> 2. Does cpim-srv need to cover more than it does now?  Not as normative
> text.[personal comment: incorporating some additional non-normative examples
> and scenarios drawn from the recent discussion may be helpful for new
> readers to understand how the SRV mechanism is used and/or why it's needed.]
> 
> 3. Is it OK for there to be zero tuples in PIDF?  Yes, but we need to add
> text to the spec discouraging any attempt to use e.g. <note> as a
> non-interoperable substitute for status.
> 
> 4. Should PIDF be split into "pure presence" vs. "IM-related" parts? No.
> 
> 5. Is there a loop detection mechanism in CPIM?  Yes, Jon will add
> "MaxForwards" (or some variant spelling) in the next draft.
> 
> 6. Should there be a MaxForwards field on MSGFMT? No, MSGFMT has to be
> immutable and so a decrementing hopcount won't work there.
> 
> If anyone thinks I got these issues badly wrong, please say something now.
> 
> I think we end up needing small changes to CPIM and PIDF, plus optional
> non-normative explanations in CPIM-SRV.  In the absence of objections from
> the WG to this summary, the editors should go ahead and make those changes
> so we can move to WG last call on our docs.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
> 
> 

-- 
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]