Re: draft-ietf-impp-pres-01

Dave,

Just to clarify, I'm not stuck one way or another.  I agree with the
principles you've laid out; I'm just having trouble mapping this to reality.

Whenever one deals with a subscription, it is in the context of the watcher
and the presentity (subscriber and "subscribee"), so I don't the the
practical point of having the SubIDs globally unique.  Are you evern going
to have a SubID alone?

In a sense, if you consider the "unique identifier" to be the To, From and
SubID, the two solutions are identical.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]>
To: "Thanos Diacakis" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]>; "Peterson, Jon"
<[email protected]>; "John Ramsdell" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-impp-pres-01


> Thanos,
>
> My own opinion about the choice:
>
> If an identifier is being used only within a continuing context -- ie,
> very short-term usage -- then context-based identifiers are fine.
>
> As soon as the identifier has any complexity of use, either from having
> an extended lifetime or from being used across multiple contexts -- even
> when they are logically the same context but involve interruptions of
> service -- then self-identifying identifiers are much, much better.
>
> The concern about saving bits is usually not worth having dominate the
> design choice for such things, in application protocols.
>
> d/
>
> Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 12:31:13 PM, you wrote:
> Thanos> I was talking about the difference between context-based
uniqueness (what I
> Thanos> called the relaxed one - where the context is the
watcher/presentity pair)
> Thanos> and self-identified (which I think we called "globally unique").
>
> Thanos> In addition to the trade-offs mentioned below, there is also the
issue of
> Thanos> generating the extra bits for a self-identified unique identifier,
as well
> Thanos> as the burden of ensuring that this identifier is globally unique.
> Thanos> Whoever/whatever is generating those bits must have the means to
ensure
> Thanos> self-identified uniqueness.
>
> Thanos> Instead of arguing how much that burden is, I was wondering
whether there
> Thanos> are any reasons to go with a globally unique one, keeping in mind,
that
> Thanos> there is nothing that prevents us from using a globally unique
identifies,
> Thanos> in a specific To/From context.  It would still be unique.
>
>
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave <mailto:[email protected]>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
>
>
>
>
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
>
>




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