Re: draft-ietf-simple-chat-10

Hi Paul,

I noticed that we never discussed this issue in depth. Allow me to come 
back to it.

I believe the general principle is that a nickname gets associated to a 
SIP AOR, establishing a one-to-one relationship between them. Therefore, 
if a user joins the conference under the same SIP AOR, he should be only 
allowed to use the same nickname that has been already associated from 
other devices. In any other case, an error should be generated.

Do you agree?

/Miguel

On 07/10/2011 0:58, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Somehow I missed the WGLC of draft-ietf-simple-chat-10 until I came
> across the post-WGLC review request sent to MMUSIC. As I was looking
> through it I came across a possible issue that isn't related to SDP
> usage. Maybe its too late to do anything about it, and maybe nothing
> needs to be done about it, but I'll mention it anyway:
>
> Section 7, in multiple places, requires that nicknames be unambiguous.
> The most specific is:
>
>      The reservation of a nickname can fail, e.g. if the NICKNAME request
>      contains a malformed or non-existent Use-Nickname header field, or if
>      the same nickname has already been reserved by another participant in
>      the conference.
>
> Elsewhere in the document the possibility is raised that the same user
> may connect to the chat from multiple devices, and that private messages
> addressed to the user would then be delivered to all those devices.
>
> So, in such a case, can each of the devices request the same nickname?
> Or must they each request a distinct nickname? It seems like it would be
> desirable to permit them all to use the same nickname. Its unclear to me
> whether the draft intends to permit this.
>
> 	Sorry to be so tardy,
> 	Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain