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

I agree OPEN and CLOSED are not adequate to characterize your presence state
for some kind of commercial enterprise telephony offering, sure. But OPEN
and CLOSED do not even provide sufficient status granularity for IM. On
existing IM offerings, your presence status can be 'busy', 'away', and so
on, right? Is 'away - idle for 5 minutes' OPEN or CLOSED? The point is that
OPEN and CLOSED are minimal building blocks - figuring out their meaning in
the context of IM is just as difficult as it would be for other contexts.
Saying that they have some applicability to IM which they do not have for
telephony is inaccurate, in my opinion. Our definition of status has no
dependencies on any communication means.

I quoted to you before how OPEN and CLOSED are defined in RFC2778 - the
definition is quite vague, sure, but: 1) this binary status is useful for
maintaining minimal interoperability when richer status extensions are in
use, and 2) it gives you some limited sense of whether or not a presentity
is disposed to receive communications. If I am taking someone's presence for
telephony, and I get back CLOSED, I get the sense that my attempt to call
them probably won't reach them. If I get OPEN, then my attempt to call may
well get through.

I don't think we're really talking past one another - but I am afraid that
in light of the recent discussion in SIMPLE, this may appear more
complicated than it really is.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thanos Diacakis [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:55 PM
> 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))
> 
> 
> 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]