Subject: [Simple] RPIDS: extensions to PIDF

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:49:19 -0500

Based on the discussion on this list, we prepared an initial draft to 
provide a possible approach. Until it appears in the official archives, 
the draft can be found at

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/drafts/draft-schulzrinne-simple-rpids-00.pdf
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/drafts/draft-schulzrinne-simple-rpids-00.txt

Comments are appreciated.

Henning

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

---

From: "Thanos Diacakis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:47:26 -0700

Henning,

Section 4, "Groups of Presentities" is not very clear to me.

For example, how is the "status of a group as a whole" defined? Is that an
aggregation of the presence documents of all the members?

The 4 types listed seem to be combinations of some characteristics such as:
- granularity of notifications (all members, individual members)
- triggering of notifications
- full/delta notifications

Are there any more that are missing?  Can we express those cases in terms of
some more basic features?

Thanos
---
Thanos Diacakis
Openwave Systems
[email-masked]
+1-303 385 6705

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:21:52 -0500

> aggregation of the presence documents of all the members?

Yes. Clearly, some status descriptions won't make sense for a group, but 
I don't think any of them can be ruled out completely. In general, 
'open' would mean that one or more of the members are available.

> some more basic features?

It might be useful to discuss first whether the <member> concept is 
needed in RPIDS, given the notion of list subscriptions in a different 
SIMPLE draft.