Re: [Simple] notes from the SIMPLE components adhoc at IETF53

Wayne - Is it possible to consider changing priority to be a float in range [0.0-1.0], for consistency with the sip specification? (Or is there something else this also
needs to be consistent with?)

	Paul

"Carr, Wayne" wrote:
> 
> > Hmm - good question. I had not looked very closely at the
> > schema, and hadn't noticed that the priority range was 0-255.
> 
> It's defined as that range in "4.1.5. The <contact> element" ... "The value
> of the
>    attribute MUST be an integer ranged from 0 to 255."  I put it in the
> schema to mirror that.
> 
> xml schema datatypes has IEEE floats and doubles and can set ranges.



> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:25 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: 'Henning G. Schulzrinne'; 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; 'Robert Sparks';
> > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Simple] notes from the SIMPLE components adhoc at IETF53
> >
> >
> > Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06 April 2002 00:11, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > > > Callerprefs provide a number of dimensions on which to classify a
> > > > contact (tuple). These could be mapped directly to status
> > values. Or
> > > > they could be mapped to some new elements within a tuple.
> > They are a
> > > > bit more complex than the what is currently defined by
> > > > urn:ietf:params:cpim-presence:status-type:basic. There
> > are a number of
> > >
> > > > preference parameter types (class, duplex, feature,
> > language, media,
> > > > mobility, methods, priority), and each in turn has an
> > enumerated set
> > > > of possible values. (There is also a "description"
> > parameter, but it
> > > > probably should be mapped to <note>, and a q-value that is already
> > > > represented as the priority attribute of <contact>.)
> > >
> > > A new draft describing IMPP PIDF has been posted and should show up
> > > shortly. It includes changes from recent IMPP discussions but still
> > > leaves a few issues outstanding.
> > >
> > > One question I have with reference to the text above is
> > regarding the
> > > priority attribute of <contact>. In the current draft, the
> > priority is
> > > defined in the range 0 to 255. The description above
> > suggests mapping a
> > > q-value to the priority. What range does this have? Do you feel the
> > > priority as currently defined is appropriate or are there any
> > > alternative suggestions?
> >
> > Hmm - good question. I had not looked very closely at the
> > schema, and hadn't noticed that the priority range was 0-255.
> > In callerprefs, the q-value is a real number in the
> > range [0.0-1.0]. The good and the bad of that is that the
> > precision isn't defined, so you potentially have an infinite
> > number of values, but don't know how many will
> > actually be supported.
> >
> > Of course it is possible to map between the two ranges,
> > though problems of roundoff may occur.
> >
> > The mapping would be best if both standards agreed on the
> > same range. The q-value definition is inherited by SIP (from
> > HTTP?) so would be difficult to change. Is it
> > possible to change this to match in PIDF? If not, maybe
> > something new is needed for the q-value to map to. (But it
> > would be ugly to have two priority values, without a
> > clear reason for each.)
> >
> >       Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical
> > discussions, please]
> >
> _______________________________________________
> simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple


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