Re: A comment on draft-ietf-simple-chat-12
Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.simple |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Further: I'd encourage you to use the word "identifier" because "identity" is vague and overloaded. On 1/20/12 5:54 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > Gonzalo, > > The requirement talks on purpose about "identities" with the ambiguity > that the word "identities" carry, meaning that we don't really specify > whether those identities are SIP identities, tel URL identities, > nicknames, or social security identities :-) > > Then requirements 5 and 7 expand a bit more on the type of identities > that must be supported by the system. > > So, to answer your question, Req-2 deliberately leaves unspecified the > type of identity of a sender and recipients, since this will depend on a > number of factors, to mention a few: > - whether nicknames are supported/used. > - whether anonymity is requested. > - The type of real identity used by the user. > > I still leaning towards leaving the requirement written as it is now. > > /Miguel > > On 20/01/2012 13:27, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> a quick comment on draft-ietf-simple-chat-12 before I start its IETF LC: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-simple-chat-12 >> >> Requirement 2 says the following: >> >> REQ-2: A conference participant must be able to determine the >> identities of the sender and recipient of the received IMs. >> >> A few lines below, requirements 5 and 7 talk about participants having >> nicknames, pseudonyms, real identities, and anonymous identities. >> >> What would be a good way to rephrase requirement 2 so that it is clear >> what type of identity it refers to? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Simple mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple