Re: Updated draft on saving IM address in vCards

Quoteing [email protected], on Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 11:21:51PM -0800:
> I have just updated a draft on saving instance messaging addresses in
> vCards. I'm hoping to move this to an RFC and would appreciate any comments
> that folks had. Until it shows up in the internet drafts directory, you can
> find the draft at 
> 
> http://www.employees.org/~fluffy/ietf/draft-jennings-impp-vcard-02.txt

What's the thinking behind putting the core capabilities
(video/voice/text) in a "type" param? Why not a seperate "capa" param?
If there actually are seperate classes of devices, and you can see cases
where the type of message sent to the device could be chosen
automatically, then I would suggest making it a seperate param (or
removing them, as you suggest).

If you do explicitly enumerate impp-types, then I would say you should
document an explicit meaning to them, at least as much of a phrase as
RFC 2426 has for the TEL type parameters.  My feeling is if you can't
describe what each value means sufficiently enough that there would be a
common understanding of what they mean among implementors of the
specification, then they don't mean anything concrete, so its not worth
defining them.

Thanks,
Sam