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

Hi:

I have just posted version -13. I have replaced "identity" with 
"identifier" in most of the occurrences throughout the document. 
Additionally, I had clarified that requirement #2 refers to the 
identifier used by the sender or recipient when he/she joined the chat room.

I think this is ready now.

BR,

        Miguel

On 23/01/2012 9:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi Miguel Angel,
>
> thanks. As soon as the new revision hits the archives I will initiate
> the IETF LC.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 23/01/2012 9:46 AM, Miguel Garcia A wrote:
>> 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