Re: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-06.txt (was: WG Last Call on multip le documents (deadline Jan 12))

I'm not doubting that they *can* be applied.  I'm say they are not *being*
applied.

Not having defined their meanings, each person can have a totally different
interpretation of them.

So, in the context of the documents that this group is producing, "Status"
is totally specific to IM.  Nothing in there gives it any meaning in any
other context.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email protected]>
To: "'Thanos Diacakis'" <[email protected]>; "'Dave Crocker'"
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-06.txt (was: WG Last Call on multip
le documents (deadline Jan 12))


>
> If you honestly believe that the concepts of OPEN and CLOSED have no
> applicability to any other communications system than IM, then I'm not
sure
> what I can say to persuade you. The PIDF document derives from the
> requirements set forward in RFC2779, which do make note of IM, and
> consequently the way that OPEN and CLOSED are defined mentions IM. But the
> contention that OPEN and CLOSED are, as you say, 'total specific' to IM
> seems very dubious to me give the clear applicability of these concepts to
> telephony, Internet gaming, video, and so on. What these concepts mean for
> IM is 'you are able to receive communications' or not. I'm not sure how
> their application to other forms of communication is ambiguous.
>
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thanos Diacakis [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:23 AM
> > To: Peterson, Jon; 'Dave Crocker'
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-06.txt (was: WG Last Call on
> > multip le documents (deadline Jan 12))
> >
> >
> > Jon Peterson wrote:
> >
> > > Well, as I suggested, we had a thread then about how <status>, for
> > example,
> > > was not specific to IM at all. Nor is the concept of
> > <contact>. Presence
> > > concerns communications status, and the disposition of a presentity
> > towards
> > > particular avenues of communication. I think the concepts
> > of <status> and
> > > <contact> are equally applicable to voice, video, Internet
> > gaming, and
> > what
> > > have you. So I don't think these elements really are
> > specific to IM. In
> > > other words, I think <status> and <contact> are valid
> > normative concepts
> > for
> > > presence.
> >
> > Status, as defined in PIDF, is *totally* specific to IM, as
> > the only values
> > for status that are defined are IM specific, i.e. we do not
> > state what they
> > mean in a different context.
> >
> > Thanos
> > ---
> > Thanos Diacakis
> > Openwave Systems
> > [email protected]
> > +1-303 385 6705
> >
> >
>




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