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?)

The group was looking to see if the range needed to be changed for 'simple'.
I don't know if there are constraints that it be integer.  The q values
proposed in SIP are the same as in HTTP, restricted to at most 3 decimal
fractional digits (just decimal, not float notation with 'e').  Here's that
type defined in XML Schema.

  <xs:simpleType name="qvalue">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:decimal">
      <xs:pattern value="(0|1)(\.[0-9]{0,3})?"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>

Another option if the impp presence value needed to be an integer, would be
a range that's mappable easily to qvalue like [0..1000]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:13 AM
> To: Carr, Wayne
> Cc: [email protected]; 'Henning G. Schulzrinne'; 'Jonathan Rosenberg';
> 'Robert Sparks'; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: 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]