Re: A comment on draft-ietf-simple-chat-12

I agree with Peter's and Gonzalo's subsequent comment.

So, we will replace "identity" with "identifier" and clarify that the 
type of identifier is determined by the following requirements.

/Miguel

On 23/01/2012 8:34, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> right, this sounds more like an identifier, because claiming that a
> participant will be able to determine your identity when you are an
> anonymous user is not clear at all.
>
> In any case, I am OK with not specifying which exact identifier will be
> used. However, the requirement should be clear that the vagueness was
> introduced on purpose. An extra sentence should be enough for the reader
> to understand what the requirement actually means.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On 20/01/2012 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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
>

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