Re: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00.txt

(as individual)

I concur, although I might suggest a non-normative sentence or two explaining why we think that the simple-chat usage of nicknames fits that draft, and explicitly punting on confusable characters. That's all covered in Peter's draft, but it wouldn't hurt to repeat it here. If it takes more than two sentences, it's probably too much.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:00 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> I think this draft is a very good start.
> 
> So, I believe the SIMPLE chat draft should just add one sentence with a normative statement pointing this draft, and we are done.
> 
> Do we all agree that this is the path forward?
> 
> /Miguel
> 
> On 05/03/2012 23:25, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 3/5/12 3:21 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 3/5/12 3:16 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>> Excellent! Thanks, Peter!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Miguel, Geir Arne, and everyone else following this issue in SIMPLE: Does this draft meet our needs for simple-chat?
>>>> 
>>>> This is a first pass.
>>> 
>>> Of course--I should adjust my question to say "is this on the right track to meet our needs for simple-chat?" :-)
>> 
>> I think it's on the right track, but I'm biased. :)
>> 
>>>> IMHO it could be augmented with more details about
>>>> the avoidance of confusable characters, but that's quite a bit more work
>>>> and we need to figure out if the benefits are worth the cost.
>>> 
>>> Agreed, and whether that decision is necessarily the same for MSRP as for XMPP.
>> 
>> True. Even if some folks decide to go down the "avoid confusables" path,
>> I think it would be optional -- something that goes above and beyond
>> what is strictly necessary from a PRECIS point of view.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Miguel A. Garcia
> +34-91-339-3608
> Ericsson Spain