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

We're talking past eachother.  I don't disagree that we can *envision* how
binary status *could* be applied to other areas.

However, in the context of the documents that this group is *actually*
producing, "status" only applies to (i.e. is only defined for) IM.  We
imply do not specify what it means anywhere else.  What
is obvious to one person, might not be to another.

For example, for telephony you might say it means the phone is on and not
busy, and I might say the phone is on or busy, yet with call-waiting
available.  Just to pick another one from the SIMPLE list: One might argue
that DND is CLOSED, others might say that DND is OPEN, etc, etc, etc.

Trivial examples, but I'm trying to illustrate that unless we agree (i.e.
define) what OPEN or CLOSED means in the context of telephony, this status
cannot be applied there, and it is misleading to imply so.

There is no possible interop in other contexts, unless this "status" is also
defined *in those contexts*.

Whether this is useful or not in its OPEN/CLOSED binary form, is a secondary
argument that I don't really care about as much.

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 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-06.txt (was: WG Last Call on multip
le documents (deadline Jan 12))


>
> PIDF, and the IMPP WG overall, are attempting to define a minimal set of
> tools for presence. Personally, I think OPEN and CLOSED are useful
presence
> information - there is richer information that could be supplied for
> presence in addition to OPEN and CLOSED, but OPEN and CLOSED themselves
are
> not useless, they are just minimal. One reason to define a minimal set is
> for the purposes of interoperability - richer status sets that extend PIDF
> can be used in conjunction with OPEN and CLOSED to provide baseline
> compatibility with clients that do not support your status extensions.
>
> A <status> of OPEN has an obvious meaning to me in the context of, say,
> telephony. From RFC2778:
>
>    OPEN and CLOSED may also be applicable to other
>    COMMUNICATION MEANS -- OPEN mapping to some state meaning "available"
>    or "open for business" while CLOSED means "unavailable" or "closed to
>    business."
>
> This concept is not specific to IM, and IM is not the only communication
> means envisioned by RFC2778. I just don't see how this argument is
tenable.
> Numerous requirements in RFC2779 motivate our direction.
>
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thanos Diacakis [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:10 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))
> >
> >
> > 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]