Subject: [Simple] 3GPP Presence requirements I-D: how the requirements are handled

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:22:55 +0300

Hi,

IETF54 made a consensus about integrating the 3GPP Presence requirements (http://www.softarmor.com/simple/drafts/draft-kiss-simple-presence-wireless-reqs-00.txt) into the chartered requirements document. I assume the integration could be done for most of the requirements, however we might need further discussions for some of the "tricky" requirements. Hereby I have tried collecting these:

1. Filtering. The minutes of the SIMPLE session states: "there are requirements for filtering in a lot of our discussions, we should add to charter." I guess there is consensus here, so filtering should be added to SIMPLE charter.
2. Partial publication/notification: during the SIMPLE session it was commented that CPIM and partial notification are conflicting requirements. This requirement is considered an important feature for wireless environment, however I am not sure how to resolve the conflict with CPIM. See also related mail in http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/pipermail/simple/2002-July/001691.html
3. Anonymous subscription: I guess this requirement can be fulfilled by defining authorization rules for anonymous subscribers.
4. "Keep all PUAs aware of each other's publishing": this requirement might be fulfilled with the solution when every PUA subscribes to its own presence. Using filtering mechanisms, the PUA could filter out its own publication when receiving notifications in order to save bandwidth. 
5. Location information: during the SIMPLE session this was found problematic because of authorization issues around who can update and/or see geoloc information.

I assume for the other requirements that those are found valid and will be mirrored in the chartered requirements I-D. Please comment if you think otherwise.

Thanks,
Krisztian
_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Sean Olson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:39:35 -0700

Partial notification can also be solved through filtering.
Partial publication makes no sense to me. Could you elaborate
on what you need for partial publication?

Thanks,
Sean

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 5:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Simple] 3GPP Presence requirements I-D: how the requirements
are handled

Hi,

IETF54 made a consensus about integrating the 3GPP Presence requirements
(http://www.softarmor.com/simple/drafts/draft-kiss-simple-presence-wirel
ess-reqs-00.txt) into the chartered requirements document. I assume the
integration could be done for most of the requirements, however we might
need further discussions for some of the "tricky" requirements. Hereby I
have tried collecting these:

1. Filtering. The minutes of the SIMPLE session states: "there are
requirements for filtering in a lot of our discussions, we should add to
charter." I guess there is consensus here, so filtering should be added
to SIMPLE charter. 2. Partial publication/notification: during the
SIMPLE session it was commented that CPIM and partial notification are
conflicting requirements. This requirement is considered an important
feature for wireless environment, however I am not sure how to resolve
the conflict with CPIM. See also related mail in
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/pipermail/simple/2002-July/001691.html
3. Anonymous subscription: I guess this requirement can be fulfilled by
defining authorization rules for anonymous subscribers. 4. "Keep all
PUAs aware of each other's publishing": this requirement might be
fulfilled with the solution when every PUA subscribes to its own
presence. Using filtering mechanisms, the PUA could filter out its own
publication when receiving notifications in order to save bandwidth. 
5. Location information: during the SIMPLE session this was found
problematic because of authorization issues around who can update and/or
see geoloc information.

I assume for the other requirements that those are found valid and will
be mirrored in the chartered requirements I-D. Please comment if you
think otherwise.

Thanks,
Krisztian

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:14:07 -0400

inline:

[email-masked] wrote:
> to SIMPLE charter.

I agree filtering is important. What is not clear is whether we should 
start with requirements, and where those should be done, and then where 
the filtering work should occur. I suppose that, since its not a sip 
extension per se, SIMPLE would be OK. However, I would hope that the 
work is not presence specific, and would be generally useful for sip events.

> 2. Partial publication/notification: during the SIMPLE session it was
> commented that CPIM and partial notification are conflicting
> requirements. This requirement is considered an important feature for
> wireless environment, however I am not sure how to resolve the conflict
> with CPIM. See also related mail in

It is not at all clear to me that this will actually save you anything. 
I suspect that SIGCOMP would, right now, give you much better overall 
bandwidth utilization than partial notifications. There is simply not a 
sufficient amount of data in the presence for a single user to warrant 
partial updates, IMHO.

> defining authorization rules for anonymous subscribers.

Yes.

> 4. "Keep all PUAs aware of each other's publishing": this requirement
> might be fulfilled with the solution when every PUA subscribes to its
> own presence. Using filtering mechanisms, the PUA could filter out its
> own publication when receiving notifications in order to save bandwidth.

I asked this during the meeting, and I will ask again - why?

The whole model of presence is that each PUA is independent. They don't 
need, and in fact, don't want, to know the details of the other PUA 
publishing for the presentity. Indeed, I can imagine cases where a PUA 
is authorized to publish for a presentity, but not authorized to see its 
presence! Consider the case of a web server that publishes information 
on the web page I am currently browsing; I might not want that site to 
know anything about me; but its OK for it to publish that I am currently 
browsing their site.

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com