Subject: [Simple] some thoughts on "warnings"

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:24:00 -0500

Folks,

One of our aims is to ulimately have a set of protocols which can 
provide features on-par with the commercial IM/presence systems deployed 
today. One of the interesting features is the "warning" feature on AOL. 
This feature allows you to warn against a buddy. The more people warn 
against them, the higher their warn percentage. All subsribers to that 
buddy see their warning percentage.

I believe this is quite easy to do for us. The "warn" operation against 
a buddy is just a PUBLISH request, but its a third party PUBLISH. If I 
warn against Henning, my publish would look like this:

PUBLISH sip:[email-masked] SIP/2.0
From: sip:[email-masked]
To: sip:[email-masked]
Content-Type: application/pidf

<PIDF doc with presence fragment>

The presence fragment has Henning as the presentity, and it has a single 
tuple with a single status. That status would be warn, whose value is a 
percentage:

<presence entity="sip:[email-masked]">
   <tuple id="88a">
     <status>
       <warn>100</warn>
     </status>
   </tuple>
</presence>

This would get routed to the PA for henning (another good use of SIP for 
PUBLISH as opposed to something else, btw). The compositor there would 
combine my warn with any others, and compute an overall warning that 
gets applied. This would be distributed as an attribute of the presence 
document in NOTIFYs.

Of course, the main complication is what "warn" really means. Is it a 
warning against a presentity? A device? A media type? Any or all of the 
above? This is part of the bigger issue of what a tuple and presentity 
represent.

Assuming that is sorted out, all we need to support this is two things:

* another attribute in hennings RPIDS draft,
* a discussion of this in the architecture draft that we are chartered to do

Do folks believe it is useful to add this, and if so, does the above 
mechanism make sense?

Thanks,
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

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:33:12 -0600

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
[...]
> above? This is part of the bigger issue of what a tuple and presentity 

One more reason why I have argued in the past that only principals
(or groups of such) be presentities; everything else are devices
controlled by the presentities.  But I digress...

> Do folks believe it is useful to add this, and if so, does the above 

I have no problem with the mechanism itself (other than what is to
stop me from sending a flood of warnings from all my different ids
to wilfully harm harm a presentity by upping the warning level on it), 
or the inclusion of it as an attribute in the RPIDS I-D.  But for
the AOL uninitiated like me, could you provide more information on
what the semantics of warn are?  If the intent is to warn other
watchers about the presence of an unwanted presentity, why would
we even be interested in monitoring the presence of this unwanted
presentity in the first place?

I am sure I am missing something about the inherent semantics of
warn...

Cheers.

- vijay

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:54:48 -0500

To me, the warning mechanism seems like a special case of a reputation 
system. These seem notoriously difficult to design if you want something 
that is not subject to various subversion tactics. I believe EBay and 
similar ventures have lots of experience with that. This is not just a 
device-presentity split - somebody may be a perfectly knowledgeable and 
useful conversation partner on topics related to LOTR, but may believe 
in new binary arithmetic. Also, as grade inflation shows, pretty soon 
all the IMers will be above average.

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>> warning against a presentity? A device? A media type? Any or all of 
>> the above? This is part of the bigger issue of what a tuple and 
>> presentity represent.
> 
>

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:09:57 -0800

Can you trust Henning's PA to correctly tabulate warns that warn against
Henning?

This seems like a push mechanism where every time someone adds a warn on
somebody the message broadcast all over the place. It might be better to
have it more a pull mechanism so that when you want to find out if you
should trust AOR trying to contact you, you can query some set of people to
get a warning for the AOR. The set of people could be random or a set or
people you trust. (I have no idea what trust means in this context :-)

On a more meta thought which may not lead to anything useful... Seems like
this instantly gets wrapped up in the identity problems. Perhaps a warn
system that is better than current systems can be build taking advantage of
a PUBLISH mechanism but combining it with some ideas like
http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html or PKI based webs of trusts.

Cullen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Simple] some thoughts on "warnings"
>
>
> Folks,
>

---

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 03:55:44 -0800 (PST)

My main concern with this approach would be re-using
the PIDF format for this. This doesn't seem like a
good fit for a presence attribute. I would prefer
a new XML scheme for this rather than do this as
an addon to PIDF. 

--- Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > Jonathan Rosenberg
> > * a discussion of this in the architecture draft
> that we are
> > chartered to do
> >

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:59:50 -0500

Jonathan,

You most likely would need to publish this sort of warning to a well-known 
third-party not controllable by the offending party.  The offending 
identity would need to be part of what is published along with perhaps a 
timestamp or something to provide some uniqueness and a sense of how often 
the offense is taken.

A percentage may be valid over some base of messages, but only calculatable 
if the total number of messages sent is known.  I'm not sure that will be 
the case.

Also, how do you accumulate statistics, when the identity is set by the 
end-user, e.g. Marie1234, Marie1235, ... ?

Mike

At 04:24 PM 2/22/2003 -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>Folks,
>
>One of our aims is to ulimately have a set of protocols which can provide 
>features on-par with the commercial IM/presence systems deployed today. 
>One of the interesting features is the "warning" feature on AOL. This 
>feature allows you to warn against a buddy. The more people warn against 
>them, the higher their warn percentage. All subsribers to that buddy see 
>their warning percentage.
>
>I believe this is quite easy to do for us. The "warn" operation against a 
>buddy is just a PUBLISH request, but its a third party PUBLISH. If I warn 
>against Henning, my publish would look like this:
>
>combine my warn with any others, and compute an overall warning that gets 
>applied. This would be distributed as an attribute of the presence 
>document in NOTIFYs.
>