From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 02:02:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17381 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h317QNI03199 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:26:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h317QMK03196 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:26:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16937 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h317Q9K03180; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:26:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h317PDK03128 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:25:13 -0500 Received: from il-tlv-smtpout2.icomverse.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15945 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by il-tlv-smtpout2.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3172oS25053; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:02:50 +0300 Received: by il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:02:55 +0300 Message-ID: <385D702A9C11D511A9E90008C7160AD5054541E4@ISMAIL1> From: Cnaan Oded To: "'Sean Olson'" , "Rosen, Brian" , Jonathan Rosenberg Cc: simple@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2F81C.B76BC9E4" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:02:54 +0300 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F81C.B76BC9E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices would be too limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous email, there are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the service is using an unknown device. A more general solution would be to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. I believe that solving the problem of relationship between tuples and tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service (application) reports on which device it is running is crucial for the completeness of the solution. Oded Cnaan > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > comment is that we might wish to model applications > independent of a device, but that could be a future > improvement. > > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > tuple == device? > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > bull by the horns > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > We've had > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > parties want the > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > thus far > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > possible. > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > where a > > User may have a series of > > Devices, each one of which may have a number of > > Applications > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > them (parent/sibling) > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > a chance to > > figure out what is happening. > > > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > coupling > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > wrote: > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > does a > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > document) are tools for > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > like people, devices, > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > agreed-upon > > > > definitions of what > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > real-world > > > > systems, or these > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > document > > > > has to take into > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > between devices and > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > needs > > > > to take that into > > > > account. > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > popular > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > mechanism > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > tuples > > > > are > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > required > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > that > > > > you > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > Paul > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > represents" > > > > has > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > have > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > mobile > > > > >>phone. > > > > >> > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> busy > > > > >> > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > is > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > there > > > > >>might be some information > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > tuples. > > > > >> > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > duplicate > > > > this > > > > >>information. Having > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > the > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > information. > > > > >> > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > "device > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > >>For example: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> busy > > > > >> > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > status, > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > device > > > > may > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > >> > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > a > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > is a > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > be > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F81C.B76BC9E4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling

I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices = would be too limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous = email, there are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases = where the service is using an unknown device. A more general solution = would be to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a = device.

I believe that solving the problem of relationship = between tuples and tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how = a service (application) reports on which device it is running is = crucial for the completeness of the solution.

 
Oded Cnaan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM
> To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg
> Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and = device coupling
>
>
> Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My = only
> comment is that we might wish to model = applications
> independent of a device, but that could be a = future
> improvement.
>
> Based on this understanding, it would seem that =
> tuple =3D=3D device?
>
>
>
> --- "Rosen, Brian" = <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps the time has come to take this = particular
> > bull by the horns
> > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple = represents.
> > We've had
> > too many disagreements on mechanisms where = the
> > parties want the
> > tuple to represent different things.  = Our solutions
> > thus far
> > usually mean widening options to make all = things
> > possible.
> >
> > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped = hierarchy
> > where a
> >     User may have a series = of
> >     =         Devices, each one of which =      may have a number of
> >     =         =         Applications
> > Each of these can provide presence.
> >
> > If we were to go this far, I'd like links = between
> > them (parent/sibling)
> > so that in a real world mixed environment, = you have
> > a chance to
> > figure out what is happening.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 = PM
> > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; = simple@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple = references and device
> > coupling
> > >
> > >
> > > Understood... now the next immediate = question is:
> > >
> > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF = contain the
> > > semantics of device, application, and = user?
> > >
> > > Of course you can build this with the = syntax of
> > > a tuple. The problem is that you can = build this
> > > in more than one way and there is no = clear
> > > standard way to do this.
> > >
> > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve = this, at
> > > least for the SIMPLE community. =
> > >
> > > Am I wrong?
> > >
> > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg = <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > It all comes back to the same = problem - what
> > does a
> > > > tuple represent?
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in = general, a presence
> > > > document) are tools for
> > > > modeling real-world systems that = have components
> > > > like people, devices,
> > > > applications, and so on. We NEED = to have
> > agreed-upon
> > > > definitions of what
> > > > a tuple is, and how it is used = to model
> > real-world
> > > > systems, or these
> > > > problems will continue to plague = us.
> > > >
> > > > What Oded is saying is that the = presence
> > document
> > > > has to take into
> > > > account the fact that there are = relationships
> > > > between devices and
> > > > applications in the real world, = and the model
> > needs
> > > > to take that into
> > > > account.
> > > >
> > > > -Jonathan R.
> > > >
> > > > Sean Olson wrote:
> > > > > There seems to be a third = option which is
> > popular
> > > > > as well. The tuple ID is = just an ordering
> > > > mechanism
> > > > > within an XML document to = determine when
> > tuples
> > > > are
> > > > > added and removed. = Additional syntax is then
> > > > required
> > > > > to achieve the semantics of = device/service
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > mention below. This appears = to be the approach
> >
> > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. = Perhaps Henning or
> > > > Paul
> > > > > can comment?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Sean
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Cnaan Oded = <Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Although the question = "what a tuple
> > represents"
> > > > has
> > > > >>not been discussed = in
> > > > >>depth yet, it seems that = most implementation
> > have
> > > > >>chosen to either = represent
> > > > >>devices or services. For = example, a tuple may
> > > > >>represent a cell phone = but can
> > > > >>also represent an IM = client running on a
> > mobile
> > > > >>phone.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Here is a simple example = of 2 such tuples:
> > > > >>
> > > > >><?xml = version=3D"1.0" encoding=3D"UTF-8"?>
> > > > >><presence
> > = xmlns=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf"
> > > > >>  = entity=3D"pres:someone@example.com">
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   <tuple = id=3D"phone">
> > > > = >>      <status>
> > > > = >>         = <basic>open</basic>
> > > > = >>      </status>
> > > > = >>      = <contact>tel:09012345678</contact>
> > > > >>    = </tuple>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   <tuple = id=3D"mobile-im">
> > > > = >>      <status>
> > > > = >>         = <basic>open</basic>
> > > > = >>         = <im:im>busy</im:im>
> > > > = >>      </status>
> > > > = >>      = <contact>sip:user@domain.com</contact>
> > > > >>    = </tuple>
> > > > >>
> > > > >></presence>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>There are cases where = there is a relationship
> > > > >>between these tuples. = For
> > > > >>example, in the above = example, the IM client
> > is
> > > > >>running on the same = device
> > > > >>described by the first = tuple, meaning that
> > there
> > > > >>might be some = information
> > > > >>(e.g., location) that is = related to both
> > tuples.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>One approach to handle = it would be to
> > duplicate
> > > > this
> > > > >>information. = Having
> > > > >>'Location' described in = the tuple representing
> > the
> > > > >>device as well as the = one
> > > > >>representing the = service. This approach is not
> > > > >>efficient in terms of = volume
> > > > >>as many tuples might = relate to the same
> > > > information.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Another possible = solution would be to create a
> > > > >>reference between = tuples, in
> > > > >>this example between a = "service tuple" and a
> > > > "device
> > > > >>tuple". In this = case,
> > > > >>the information is = described only once but is
> > > > >>referenced from other = tuples.
> > > > >>For example:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   <tuple = id=3D"mobile-im" ref=3D"phone">
> > > > = >>      <status>
> > > > = >>         = <basic>open</basic>
> > > > = >>         = <im:im>busy</im:im>
> > > > = >>      </status>
> > > > = >>      = <contact>sip:user@domain.com</contact>
> > > > >>    = </tuple>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Following the latter = option, the device
> > status,
> > > > >>location, LCD resolution = or
> > > > >>any other attributes = associated with the
> > device
> > > > may
> > > > >>be picked up from = the
> > > > >>"phone" tuple = so that the "mobile-im" tuple
> > > > >>represents only the = service
> > > > >>characteristics.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Following the above = example, if the user is on
> > a
> > > > >>call, and his device = state
> > > > >>changes from = "open" to "call" (assuming this
> > is a
> > > > >>valid value), the = "phone"
> > > > >>tuple is the only one = that changes (and will
> > be
> >
> =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D
>
>
> = __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March = Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F81C.B76BC9E4-- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 03:56:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01415 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 03:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h319K6I11480 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:20:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h319K6K11477 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:20:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01395 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 03:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h319JFK11404; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:19:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h319IkK11366 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:18:46 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01378 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 03:54:34 -0500 (EST) From: aki.niemi@nokia.com Received: from esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir01nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.33]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.5) with ESMTP id h318tTN00354 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:55:29 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:40:53 +0300 Received: from esebe013.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.52]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:40:52 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Message-ID: <98C7D2E5BCD2374C9AAE0BCD2E9C1DD9019451E7@esebe013.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Thread-Index: AcL4JwwSNoYQ9YCwTKSIvD3eBcJFHQAAFzyg To: , , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2003 08:40:52.0019 (UTC) FILETIME=[67006830:01C2F82A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h319IkK11367 Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:40:51 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I agree. First and foremost, a tuple should represent a service. Providing the device on which the service is running is also valuable, but I think this is the correct relationship between the two. Also, seems to me that RPIDS provides you with exactly this with the help of and elements. Do we need something more than that? Cheers, Aki -----Original Message----- From: ext Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com] Sent: 01 April, 2003 10:03 To: 'Sean Olson'; Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg Cc: simple@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices would be too limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous email, there are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the service is using an unknown device. A more general solution would be to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. I believe that solving the problem of relationship between tuples and tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service (application) reports on which device it is running is crucial for the completeness of the solution. Oded Cnaan > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > comment is that we might wish to model applications > independent of a device, but that could be a future > improvement. > > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > tuple == device? > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > bull by the horns > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > We've had > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > parties want the > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > thus far > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > possible. > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > where a > > User may have a series of > > Devices, each one of which may have a number of > > Applications > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > them (parent/sibling) > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > a chance to > > figure out what is happening. > > > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > coupling > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > wrote: > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > does a > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > document) are tools for > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > like people, devices, > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > agreed-upon > > > > definitions of what > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > real-world > > > > systems, or these > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > document > > > > has to take into > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > between devices and > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > needs > > > > to take that into > > > > account. > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > popular > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > mechanism > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > tuples > > > > are > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > required > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > that > > > > you > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > Paul > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > represents" > > > > has > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > have > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > mobile > > > > >>phone. > > > > >> > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> busy > > > > >> > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > is > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > there > > > > >>might be some information > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > tuples. > > > > >> > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > duplicate > > > > this > > > > >>information. Having > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > the > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > information. > > > > >> > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > "device > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > >>For example: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> busy > > > > >> > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > status, > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > device > > > > may > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > >> > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > a > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > is a > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > be > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 05:50:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03511 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 05:50:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31BEZ718884 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:14:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31BEYK18881 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:14:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03505 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 05:50:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31BECK18864; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:14:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31BDoK18828 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:13:50 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03490 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 05:49:33 -0500 (EST) From: mikko.lonnfors@nokia.com Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.5) with ESMTP id h31AoSN17668 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:50:28 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:51:55 +0300 Received: from esebe004.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.44]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:51:53 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2F83C.B4800E14" Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Message-ID: <0C1353ABB1DEB74DB067ADFF749C4EEF01D171A3@esebe004.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Thread-Index: AcL4JwvXRmIZjKv9RfuAqgICR2QazgAFNLzw To: , , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2003 10:51:53.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5173B40:01C2F83C] Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:51:52 +0300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F83C.B4800E14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 As Aki already said RPIDS should give the flexibility to express what tuple represents. At a moment application can give the content information in element so that correct address can be contacted. Are you saying that there is a need to have some addition indentifier for the actual device or would this be enough? =20 - Mikko=20 -----Original Message----- From: ext Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:03 AM To: 'Sean Olson'; Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg Cc: simple@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling =09 =09 I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices would be too limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous email, there are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the service is using an unknown device. A more general solution would be to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. I believe that solving the problem of relationship between tuples and tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service (application) reports on which device it is running is crucial for the completeness of the solution. =09 Oded Cnaan=20 > -----Original Message-----=20 > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM=20 > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg=20 > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org=20 > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling=20 >=20 >=20 > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only=20 > comment is that we might wish to model applications=20 > independent of a device, but that could be a future=20 > improvement.=20 >=20 > Based on this understanding, it would seem that=20 > tuple =3D=3D device?=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote:=20 > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular=20 > > bull by the horns=20 > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents.=20 > > We've had=20 > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the=20 > > parties want the=20 > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions=20 > > thus far=20 > > usually mean widening options to make all things=20 > > possible.=20 > >=20 > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy=20 > > where a=20 > > User may have a series of=20 > > Devices, each one of which may have a number of=20 > > Applications=20 > > Each of these can provide presence.=20 > >=20 > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between=20 > > them (parent/sibling)=20 > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have=20 > > a chance to=20 > > figure out what is happening.=20 > >=20 > > Brian=20 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message-----=20 > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com]=20 > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM=20 > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg=20 > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org=20 > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device=20 > > coupling=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is:=20 > > >=20 > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the=20 > > > semantics of device, application, and user?=20 > > >=20 > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of=20 > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this=20 > > > in more than one way and there is no clear=20 > > > standard way to do this.=20 > > >=20 > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at=20 > > > least for the SIMPLE community.=20 > > >=20 > > > Am I wrong?=20 > > >=20 > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg =20 > > > wrote:=20 > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what=20 > > does a=20 > > > > tuple represent?=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence=20 > > > > document) are tools for=20 > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components=20 > > > > like people, devices,=20 > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have=20 > > agreed-upon=20 > > > > definitions of what=20 > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model=20 > > real-world=20 > > > > systems, or these=20 > > > > problems will continue to plague us.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence=20 > > document=20 > > > > has to take into=20 > > > > account the fact that there are relationships=20 > > > > between devices and=20 > > > > applications in the real world, and the model=20 > > needs=20 > > > > to take that into=20 > > > > account.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > -Jonathan R.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Sean Olson wrote:=20 > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is=20 > > popular=20 > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering=20 > > > > mechanism=20 > > > > > within an XML document to determine when=20 > > tuples=20 > > > > are=20 > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then=20 > > > > required=20 > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service=20 > > that=20 > > > > you=20 > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach=20 > >=20 > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or=20 > > > > Paul=20 > > > > > can comment?=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > Regards,=20 > > > > > Sean=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded =20 > > wrote:=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple=20 > > represents"=20 > > > > has=20 > > > > >>not been discussed in=20 > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation=20 > > have=20 > > > > >>chosen to either represent=20 > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may=20 > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can=20 > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a=20 > > mobile=20 > > > > >>phone.=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples:=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >> > xmlns=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf"=20 > > > > >> entity=3D"pres:someone@example.com">=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> open=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> tel:09012345678=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> open=20 > > > > >> busy=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship=20 > > > > >>between these tuples. For=20 > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client=20 > > is=20 > > > > >>running on the same device=20 > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that=20 > > there=20 > > > > >>might be some information=20 > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both=20 > > tuples.=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to=20 > > duplicate=20 > > > > this=20 > > > > >>information. Having=20 > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing=20 > > the=20 > > > > >>device as well as the one=20 > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not=20 > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume=20 > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same=20 > > > > information.=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a=20 > > > > >>reference between tuples, in=20 > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a=20 > > > > "device=20 > > > > >>tuple". In this case,=20 > > > > >>the information is described only once but is=20 > > > > >>referenced from other tuples.=20 > > > > >>For example:=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> open=20 > > > > >> busy=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com=20 > > > > >> =20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device=20 > > status,=20 > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or=20 > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the=20 > > device=20 > > > > may=20 > > > > >>be picked up from the=20 > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple=20 > > > > >>represents only the service=20 > > > > >>characteristics.=20 > > > > >>=20 > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on=20 > > a=20 > > > > >>call, and his device state=20 > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this=20 > > is a=20 > > > > >>valid value), the "phone"=20 > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will=20 > > be=20 > >=20 > =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D=20 >=20 >=20 > __________________________________________________=20 > Do you Yahoo!?=20 > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!=20 > http://platinum.yahoo.com=20 >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F83C.B4800E14 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Hi,
 
As Aki=20 already said RPIDS should give the flexibility to express what tuple=20 represents. At a moment application can give the content=20 information in <contact> element so that correct address can be = contacted.=20 Are you saying that there is a need to have some addition indentifier = for the=20 actual device or would this be enough?
 
-=20 Mikko 
-----Original Message-----
From: ext = Cnaan Oded=20 [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, = 2003=20 10:03 AM
To: 'Sean Olson'; Rosen, Brian; Jonathan=20 Rosenberg
Cc: simple@ietf.org
Subject: RE: = [Simple] Tuple=20 references and device coupling

I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices = would be=20 too limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous email, = there are=20 also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the = service is=20 using an unknown device. A more general solution would be to allow a = tuple to=20 represent either a service or a device.

I believe that solving the problem of relationship = between=20 tuples and tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a = service=20 (application) reports on which device it is running is crucial for the = completeness of the solution.


Oded Cnaan =


> -----Original Message-----
>=20 From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM =
> To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg
>=20 Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org
> = Subject: RE:=20 [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling
>=20
>
> Sounds = like a=20 reasonable way forward. My only
> comment = is that=20 we might wish to model applications
> = independent=20 of a device, but that could be a future
> = improvement.
>
> Based=20 on this understanding, it would seem that
> tuple=20 =3D=3D device?
>
>=20
>
> --- = "Rosen, Brian"=20 <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com> wrote:
> = >=20 Perhaps the time has come to take this particular
>=20 > bull by the horns
> > and make it = EXPLICIT=20 what the tuple represents.
> > We've = had=20
> > too many disagreements on mechanisms = where=20 the
> > parties want the =
> > tuple to represent different things.  Our=20 solutions
> > thus far =
> > usually mean widening options to make all = things=20
> > possible.
> = >=20
> > Pehaps we can make an explicit = tree shaped=20 hierarchy
> > where a
> >     User may have a series of =
> >     =        =20 Devices, each one of which      may have a number = of=20
> >    =20        =20         Applications =
> > Each of these can provide presence. =
> >
> > If we were to = go this far,=20 I'd like links between
> > them=20 (parent/sibling)
> > so that in a real = world=20 mixed environment, you have
> > a = chance=20 to
> > figure out what is = happening.=20
> >
> > = Brian=20
> >
> > >=20 -----Original Message-----
> > > = From: Sean=20 Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com]=20
> > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 = PM=20
> > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg =
> > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org =
> > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and = device=20
> > coupling
> = > >=20
> > >
> > >=20 Understood... now the next immediate question is:
>=20 > >
> > > Does the syntax = provided by=20 PIDF contain the
> > > semantics of = device,=20 application, and user?
> > > =
> > > Of course you can build this with the syntax = of=20
> > > a tuple. The problem is that = you can=20 build this
> > > in more than one = way and=20 there is no clear
> > > standard = way to do=20 this.
> > >
> >=20 > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at
>=20 > > least for the SIMPLE community.
> >=20 >
> > > Am I wrong? =
> > >
> > > --- = Jonathan=20 Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
> >=20 > wrote:
> > > > It all comes = back to=20 the same problem - what
> > does = a=20
> > > > tuple represent? =
> > > >
> > > = >=20 Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence
>=20 > > > document) are tools for
> = > >=20 > modeling real-world systems that have components
> > > > like people, devices,
>=20 > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have =
> > agreed-upon
> > = > >=20 definitions of what
> > > > a = tuple is,=20 and how it is used to model
> >=20 real-world
> > > > systems, or = these=20
> > > > problems will continue = to plague=20 us.
> > > >
>=20 > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence =
> > document
> > > = > has to=20 take into
> > > > account the = fact that=20 there are relationships
> > > > = between=20 devices and
> > > > applications = in the=20 real world, and the model
> > = needs=20
> > > > to take that into =
> > > > account.
> = > >=20 >
> > > > -Jonathan R. =
> > > >
> > > = > Sean=20 Olson wrote:
> > > > > There = seems to=20 be a third option which is
> > = popular=20
> > > > > as well. The tuple ID is = just an=20 ordering
> > > > = mechanism=20
> > > > > within an XML document to = determine=20 when
> > tuples
>=20 > > > are
> > > > > = added and=20 removed. Additional syntax is then
> > = > >=20 required
> > > > > to achieve = the=20 semantics of device/service
> > = that=20
> > > > you
> >=20 > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach =
> >
> > > > > = adopted in=20 the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or
> = > >=20 > Paul
> > > > > can = comment?=20
> > > > >
> >=20 > > > Regards,
> > > > = >=20 Sean
> > > > > =
> > > > > --- Cnaan Oded=20 <Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com>
> >=20 wrote:
> > > > > =
> > > > >>Although the question "what a = tuple=20
> > represents"
> > >=20 > has
> > > > >>not = been=20 discussed in
> > > > = >>depth yet, it=20 seems that most implementation
> > = have=20
> > > > >>chosen to either = represent=20
> > > > >>devices or services. = For example,=20 a tuple may
> > > > = >>represent a=20 cell phone but can
> > > > = >>also=20 represent an IM client running on a
> = >=20 mobile
> > > > = >>phone.=20
> > > > >>
>=20 > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such = tuples:=20
> > > > >>
>=20 > > > >><?xml version=3D"1.0" = encoding=3D"UTF-8"?>=20
> > > > >><presence =
> > xmlns=3D"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" =
> > > > >> =20 entity=3D"pres:someone@example.com">
> = > >=20 > >>
> > > > = >>  =20 <tuple id=3D"phone">
> > > = >=20 >>      <status>
> > > >=20 >>        =20 <basic>open</basic>
> > = > >=20 >>      </status> =
> > > > >>     =20 <contact>tel:09012345678</contact>
>=20 > > > >>    </tuple> =
> > > > >>
> = > >=20 > >>   <tuple id=3D"mobile-im"> =
> > > > >>     =20 <status>
> > > >=20 >>        =20 <basic>open</basic>
> > = > >=20 >>        =20 <im:im>busy</im:im>
> > = > >=20 >>      </status> =
> > > > >>     =20 <contact>sip:user@domain.com</contact>
> > > > >>    = </tuple>=20
> > > > >>
>=20 > > > >></presence>
> >=20 > > >>
> > > > = >>=20
> > > > >>There are cases where = there is a=20 relationship
> > > > = >>between these=20 tuples. For
> > > > = >>example, in=20 the above example, the IM client
> > = is=20
> > > > >>running on the same = device=20
> > > > >>described by the first = tuple,=20 meaning that
> > there =
> > > > >>might be some information =
> > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related = to=20 both
> > tuples.
>=20 > > > >>
> > > >=20 >>One approach to handle it would be to
>=20 > duplicate
> > > > = this=20
> > > > >>information. = Having=20
> > > > >>'Location' described in = the tuple=20 representing
> > the
> > > > >>device as well as the one =
> > > > >>representing the service. This = approach is=20 not
> > > > >>efficient in = terms of=20 volume
> > > > >>as many = tuples=20 might relate to the same
> > > > = information.
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >>Another possible = solution=20 would be to create a
> > > >=20 >>reference between tuples, in
> = > >=20 > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a =
> > > > "device
> = > > >=20 >>tuple". In this case,
> > > = >=20 >>the information is described only once but is
> > > > >>referenced from other = tuples.=20
> > > > >>For example: =
> > > > >>
> = > >=20 > >>   <tuple id=3D"mobile-im" = ref=3D"phone">=20
> > > > = >>     =20 <status>
> > > >=20 >>        =20 <basic>open</basic>
> > = > >=20 >>        =20 <im:im>busy</im:im>
> > = > >=20 >>      </status> =
> > > > >>     =20 <contact>sip:user@domain.com</contact>
> > > > >>    = </tuple>=20
> > > > >>
>=20 > > > >>Following the latter option, the device=20
> > status,
> = > > >=20 >>location, LCD resolution or
> = > >=20 > >>any other attributes associated with the
> > device
> > > = > may=20
> > > > >>be picked up from = the=20
> > > > >>"phone" tuple so that = the=20 "mobile-im" tuple
> > > >=20 >>represents only the service
> = > >=20 > >>characteristics.
> > > = >=20 >>
> > > > = >>Following the=20 above example, if the user is on
> > = a=20
> > > > >>call, and his device = state=20
> > > > >>changes from "open" to = "call"=20 (assuming this
> > is a =
> > > > >>valid value), the "phone" =
> > > > >>tuple is the only one that = changes (and=20 will
> > be
> >=20
> =3D=3D=3D message truncated = =3D=3D=3D
>
>
>=20 __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! = Platinum -=20 Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com=20
>

=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F83C.B4800E14-- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 06:53:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05144 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31CFNg22727 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:15:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31CFMK22724 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:15:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05053 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31CFGK22716; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:15:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31CDjK22591 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:13:45 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04929; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:49:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200304011149.GAA04929@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: simple@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Simple] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 06:49:31 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Collections Author(s) : A. Roach, J. Rosenberg, B. Campbell Filename : draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt Pages : 38 Date : 2003-3-31 This document presents an extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification mechanism for subscribing to a homogenous collection of event packages. Instead of the subscriber sending a SUBSCRIBE for each resource individually, the subscriber can subscribe to an entire collection, and then receive notifications when the state of any of the resources in the collection changes. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-3-31124605.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-3-31124605.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 11:27:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26530 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31GpZv28776 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:51:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31GpZK28773 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:51:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26431 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31GpSK28651; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:51:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31GmrK27773 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:48:53 -0500 Received: from dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26117 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:24:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31GQw905739 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:26:58 -0600 From: Robert Sparks To: simple@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200304011149.GAA04929@ietf.org> References: <200304011149.GAA04929@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1049214381.991.55.camel@RjS.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Simple] WGLC: draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 01 Apr 2003 10:26:21 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a SIMPLE working group Last Call for comments on the below draft. This WGLC ends April 15, 2003. RjS SIMPLE co-chair On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 05:49, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification > Extension for Collections > Author(s) : A. Roach, J. Rosenberg, B. Campbell > Filename : draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt > Pages : 38 > Date : 2003-3-31 > > This document presents an extension to the Session Initiation > Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification mechanism for subscribing > to a homogenous collection of event packages. Instead of the > subscriber sending a SUBSCRIBE for each resource individually, the > subscriber can subscribe to an entire collection, and then receive > notifications when the state of any of the resources in the > collection changes. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt > > To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 15:28:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13611 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31Kqbw17899 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:52:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31KqbK17896 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:52:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13555 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:28:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31KqQK17814; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:52:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31KiCK17285 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:44:12 -0500 Received: from dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13233 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:19:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31KLm909383; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:21:48 -0600 Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling From: Ben Campbell To: Sean Olson Cc: "Rosen, Brian" , Jonathan Rosenberg , Cnaan Oded , Simple WG In-Reply-To: <20030401012455.55609.qmail@web41507.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030401012455.55609.qmail@web41507.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1049228482.1845.70.camel@verite.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 01 Apr 2003 14:21:23 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 19:24, Sean Olson wrote: > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > comment is that we might wish to model applications > independent of a device, but that could be a future > improvement. > I was thinking this exact same thing. Using the IM example, I may want to say something about my reachability by IM in general, and something else about any given device I might be reachable via IM at the moment. > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > tuple == device? > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > bull by the horns > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > We've had > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > parties want the > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > thus far > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > possible. > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > where a > > User may have a series of > > Devices, each one of which may have a number of > > Applications > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > them (parent/sibling) > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > a chance to > > figure out what is happening. > > > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > coupling > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > wrote: > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > does a > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > document) are tools for > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > like people, devices, > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > agreed-upon > > > > definitions of what > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > real-world > > > > systems, or these > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > document > > > > has to take into > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > between devices and > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > needs > > > > to take that into > > > > account. > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > popular > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > mechanism > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > tuples > > > > are > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > required > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > that > > > > you > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > Paul > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > represents" > > > > has > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > have > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > mobile > > > > >>phone. > > > > >> > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> busy > > > > >> > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > is > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > there > > > > >>might be some information > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > tuples. > > > > >> > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > duplicate > > > > this > > > > >>information. Having > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > the > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > information. > > > > >> > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > "device > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > >>For example: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> open > > > > >> busy > > > > >> > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > status, > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > device > > > > may > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > >> > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > a > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > is a > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > be > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 15:33:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13798 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:33:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31Kv9R18175 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:57:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31Kv8K18172 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:57:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13787 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31Kv2K18164; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31Ku7K18125 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:56:07 -0500 Received: from dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13751 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:31:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31KY0909530; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:34:00 -0600 Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling From: Ben Campbell To: Cnaan Oded Cc: "'Sean Olson'" , "Rosen, Brian" , Jonathan Rosenberg , Simple WG In-Reply-To: <385D702A9C11D511A9E90008C7160AD5054541E4@ISMAIL1> References: <385D702A9C11D511A9E90008C7160AD5054541E4@ISMAIL1> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1049229199.1845.82.camel@verite.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 01 Apr 2003 14:33:20 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I think about this, I come to the conclusion that the distinction between services and devices is not entirely clear in this context. Brian modeled as devices running one or more services, but I think others may be thinking of a service as something that may run on one or more devices. Is the distinction that a device is something we can represent with a URI, and a service is not? That seems a little unnatural. Applications running on a device typically _can_ be represented by URIs, at least if we are expected to talk to them. Even in your email example, there may not be a clear device, but there _is_ an addressable entity; that is, I could get a mailto: URL in a tuple contact, and do something useful with it. If we are thinking in terms of multiple addressable entities being part of a service, that would seem to impy a way to assign a value to a group of tuples. On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 01:02, Cnaan Oded wrote: > I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices would be too > limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous email, there > are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the > service is using an unknown device. A more general solution would be > to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. > > I believe that solving the problem of relationship between tuples and > tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service > (application) reports on which device it is running is crucial for the > completeness of the solution. > > > Oded Cnaan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM > > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > > comment is that we might wish to model applications > > independent of a device, but that could be a future > > improvement. > > > > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > > tuple == device? > > > > > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > > bull by the horns > > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > > We've had > > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > > parties want the > > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > > thus far > > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > > possible. > > > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > > where a > > > User may have a series of > > > Devices, each one of which may have a number of > > > Applications > > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > > them (parent/sibling) > > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > > a chance to > > > figure out what is happening. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > > coupling > > > > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > wrote: > > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > > does a > > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > > document) are tools for > > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > > like people, devices, > > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > > agreed-upon > > > > > definitions of what > > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > > real-world > > > > > systems, or these > > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > > document > > > > > has to take into > > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > > between devices and > > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > > needs > > > > > to take that into > > > > > account. > > > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > > popular > > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > > tuples > > > > > are > > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > > required > > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > > that > > > > > you > > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > > Paul > > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > > represents" > > > > > has > > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > > have > > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > > mobile > > > > > >>phone. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> open > > > > > >> > > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> open > > > > > >> busy > > > > > >> > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > > is > > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > > there > > > > > >>might be some information > > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > > tuples. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > > duplicate > > > > > this > > > > > >>information. Having > > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > > the > > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > > information. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > > "device > > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > > >>For example: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> open > > > > > >> busy > > > > > >> > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > > status, > > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > > device > > > > > may > > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > > a > > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > > is a > > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > > be > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your > desktop! > > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 15:44:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14329 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31L8F419523 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:08:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31L8EK19520 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:08:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14316 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:43:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31L85K19494; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:08:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31L74K18780 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:07:04 -0500 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14271 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03176; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28348; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2BDHY3MN>; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:45:03 -0500 Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF030B5FEF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> From: "Rosen, Brian" To: "'Ben Campbell'" , Cnaan Oded Cc: "'Sean Olson'" , Jonathan Rosenberg , Simple WG Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:45:02 -0500 You aren't helping :) Do you see a useful distinction between a "user" and a "service" in the context of presence? By that do you see a need for one person to have multiple services where there is a need show, for a single presentity each of the services? I'm having trouble here. I don't like showing devices, but too many people think there is value in having a single presence system that implements a presentity that publishes presence for each of the devices. Here I want to ask if there is need to show presence for separate applications/services? Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:33 PM > To: Cnaan Oded > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > As I think about this, I come to the conclusion that the distinction > between services and devices is not entirely clear in this context. > Brian modeled as devices running one or more services, but I think > others may be thinking of a service as something that may run > on one or > more devices. > > Is the distinction that a device is something we can represent with a > URI, and a service is not? That seems a little unnatural. Applications > running on a device typically _can_ be represented by URIs, > at least if > we are expected to talk to them. Even in your email example, there may > not be a clear device, but there _is_ an addressable entity; > that is, I > could get a mailto: URL in a tuple contact, and do something > useful with > it. > > If we are thinking in terms of multiple addressable entities > being part > of a service, that would seem to impy a way to assign a value > to a group > of tuples. > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 01:02, Cnaan Oded wrote: > > I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices would be too > > limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous > email, there > > are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the > > service is using an unknown device. A more general solution would be > > to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. > > > > I believe that solving the problem of relationship between > tuples and > > tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service > > (application) reports on which device it is running is > crucial for the > > completeness of the solution. > > > > > > Oded Cnaan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM > > > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > > > comment is that we might wish to model applications > > > independent of a device, but that could be a future > > > improvement. > > > > > > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > > > tuple == device? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > > > bull by the horns > > > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > > > We've had > > > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > > > parties want the > > > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > > > thus far > > > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > > > where a > > > > User may have a series of > > > > Devices, each one of which may have a > number of > > > > Applications > > > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > > > them (parent/sibling) > > > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > > > a chance to > > > > figure out what is happening. > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > > > coupling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > > > does a > > > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > > > document) are tools for > > > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > > > like people, devices, > > > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > > > agreed-upon > > > > > > definitions of what > > > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > > > real-world > > > > > > systems, or these > > > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > > > document > > > > > > has to take into > > > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > > > between devices and > > > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > > > needs > > > > > > to take that into > > > > > > account. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > > > popular > > > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > > > tuples > > > > > > are > > > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > > > required > > > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > > > that > > > > > > you > > > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > > > represents" > > > > > > has > > > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > > > have > > > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > > > mobile > > > > > > >>phone. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > >> busy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > > > is > > > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > > > there > > > > > > >>might be some information > > > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > > > tuples. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > > > duplicate > > > > > > this > > > > > > >>information. Having > > > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > > > the > > > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > > > information. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > > > "device > > > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > > > >>For example: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > >> busy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > > > status, > > > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > > > device > > > > > > may > > > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > > > a > > > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > > > is a > > > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > > > be > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your > > desktop! > > > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 16:16:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15491 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31Leeu21834 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:40:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31LeeK21831 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:40:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15470 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31LeVK21822; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:40:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31LbpK21669 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:37:51 -0500 Received: from dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15341 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31LFf910207; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:15:41 -0600 Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling From: Ben Campbell To: "Rosen, Brian" Cc: Cnaan Oded , "'Sean Olson'" , Jonathan Rosenberg , Simple WG In-Reply-To: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF030B5FEF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> References: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF030B5FEF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1049231724.1847.107.camel@verite.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 01 Apr 2003 15:15:25 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:45, Rosen, Brian wrote: > You aren't helping :) Sorry, I am having some difficulty expressing the concept. > > Do you see a useful distinction between a "user" and a "service" > in the context of presence? By that do you see a need for > one person to have multiple services where there is a need show, > for a single presentity each of the services? So, what does the word "service" mean in this context? Is IM in general a service, where I might have multiple URIs at which I can accept IMs at some time or another? Or is a "service" something that runs on a particular address and port (i.e., on a device), If you mean the second, then I can construct a URI that refers to the service, which I think makes the distinction between service and device irrelevant. But I _think_ we mean the first. So, I _think_ your question refers to, for example, the idea that I might have a voice service and an IM service, each of which has several possible contact addresses. Further, I might want to assert something about the IM service, that applies to _all_ IM contacts. I think this idea has some use, but could be modeled by simply applying the same attribute to each IM related tuple, rather than having some special "service" tuple. Sorry if this continues to not help, but I honestly think that not everyone participating in this tread shares the same definition of the term "service" > > I'm having trouble here. I don't like showing devices, but too > many people think there is value in having a single presence system > that implements a presentity that publishes presence for each of > the devices. Here I want to ask if there is need to show presence > for separate applications/services? > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:33 PM > > To: Cnaan Oded > > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > As I think about this, I come to the conclusion that the distinction > > between services and devices is not entirely clear in this context. > > Brian modeled as devices running one or more services, but I think > > others may be thinking of a service as something that may run > > on one or > > more devices. > > > > Is the distinction that a device is something we can represent with a > > URI, and a service is not? That seems a little unnatural. Applications > > running on a device typically _can_ be represented by URIs, > > at least if > > we are expected to talk to them. Even in your email example, there may > > not be a clear device, but there _is_ an addressable entity; > > that is, I > > could get a mailto: URL in a tuple contact, and do something > > useful with > > it. > > > > If we are thinking in terms of multiple addressable entities > > being part > > of a service, that would seem to impy a way to assign a value > > to a group > > of tuples. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 01:02, Cnaan Oded wrote: > > > I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices would be too > > > limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous > > email, there > > > are also services without devices (e.g., email) and cases where the > > > service is using an unknown device. A more general solution would be > > > to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. > > > > > > I believe that solving the problem of relationship between > > tuples and > > > tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service > > > (application) reports on which device it is running is > > crucial for the > > > completeness of the solution. > > > > > > > > > Oded Cnaan > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM > > > > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > > > > comment is that we might wish to model applications > > > > independent of a device, but that could be a future > > > > improvement. > > > > > > > > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > > > > tuple == device? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > > > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > > > > bull by the horns > > > > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > > > > We've had > > > > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > > > > parties want the > > > > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > > > > thus far > > > > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > > > > where a > > > > > User may have a series of > > > > > Devices, each one of which may have a > > number of > > > > > Applications > > > > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > > > > them (parent/sibling) > > > > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > > > > a chance to > > > > > figure out what is happening. > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > > > > coupling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > > > > does a > > > > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > > > > document) are tools for > > > > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > > > > like people, devices, > > > > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > > > > agreed-upon > > > > > > > definitions of what > > > > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > > > > real-world > > > > > > > systems, or these > > > > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > > > > document > > > > > > > has to take into > > > > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > > > > between devices and > > > > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > > > > needs > > > > > > > to take that into > > > > > > > account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > > > > popular > > > > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > > > > tuples > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > > > > that > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > > > > represents" > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > > > > have > > > > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > > > > mobile > > > > > > > >>phone. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > >> busy > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > > > > is > > > > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > > > > there > > > > > > > >>might be some information > > > > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > > > > tuples. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > > > > duplicate > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > >>information. Having > > > > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > > > > the > > > > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > > > > information. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > > > > "device > > > > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > > > > >>For example: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > >> busy > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > > > > status, > > > > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > > > > device > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > > > > a > > > > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > > > > is a > > > > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your > > > desktop! > > > > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 1 19:08:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22582 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h320WGn02054 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:32:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h320WGK02050 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:32:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22576 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h320WBK02041; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:32:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h320VVK01980 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:31:31 -0500 Received: from yyc.jasomi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22560 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from jasomi.com (polygon.jasomi.com [192.168.16.34]) by yyc.jasomi.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3208L4c031816; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:08:21 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E8A2A2C.1050103@jasomi.com> From: Alan Hawrylyshen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030307 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu, simple@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.73.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Simple] SIMPLEt - SIMPLE Interop Test Event April 29 - May 2, 2003 Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:09:16 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello all; I've been asked to post a pointer to these mailing lists with regards to the SIMPLE interop event coming up April 29 - May 2, 2003. Jasomi Networks will be hosting a SIMPLE interoperability event at the end of this month in Banff, Alberta, Canada. All parties interested in interop testing their SIMPLE implementations are welcome to attend. For registration and information about SIMPLEt, in Banff, please see: http://simplet.jasomi.com/ Thanks Alan Hawrylyshen Jasomi Networks Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+iios2t1B785xGCgRArf/AJ9XtEvS5cQNbsLXIpDqjlsBpBkjvwCgjgXK Fhl3nNT1TAm8TL51iQtOei0= =Hjcr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 02:51:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29706 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h328FLW13075 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 03:15:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h328FKK13072 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 03:15:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29644 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h328FEK13051; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 03:15:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h328CuK12913 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 03:12:56 -0500 Received: from dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29569 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:48:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dyn-tx-arch-crash.dfw.dynamicsoft.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h327oW918688; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 01:50:32 -0600 Subject: Re: [Simple] SIMPLEt - SIMPLE Interop Test Event April 29 - May 2, 2003 From: Robert Sparks To: sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu, simple@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3E8A2A2C.1050103@jasomi.com> References: <3E8A2A2C.1050103@jasomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1049269790.1164.3.camel@RjS.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 02 Apr 2003 01:49:50 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the interop event that was noted at the beginning of the SIMPLE meeting in San Francisco. If you have a SIMPLE implementation, please join us in Banff. Register as soon as possible. Thanks! RjS On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 18:09, Alan Hawrylyshen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello all; > > I've been asked to post a pointer to these mailing lists with regards to > the SIMPLE interop event coming up April 29 - May 2, 2003. > > Jasomi Networks will be hosting a SIMPLE interoperability event at the > end of this month in Banff, Alberta, Canada. All parties interested > in interop testing their SIMPLE implementations are welcome to attend. > > For registration and information about SIMPLEt, in Banff, please see: > > http://simplet.jasomi.com/ > > Thanks > > Alan Hawrylyshen > Jasomi Networks Inc. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQE+iios2t1B785xGCgRArf/AJ9XtEvS5cQNbsLXIpDqjlsBpBkjvwCgjgXK > Fhl3nNT1TAm8TL51iQtOei0= > =Hjcr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 08:08:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07807 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32DWEK04670 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:32:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DWEK04667 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:32:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07795 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DW7K04651; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:32:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DVnK04624 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:31:49 -0500 Received: from il-tlv-smtpout2.icomverse.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07786 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by il-tlv-smtpout2.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32D9Km05242 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:09:20 +0300 Received: by il-tlv-mbdg2.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:09:28 +0300 Message-ID: <385D702A9C11D511A9E90008C7160AD5054541F5@ISMAIL1> From: Cnaan Oded To: Simple WG Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2F919.15B6341A" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:09:25 +0300 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F919.15B6341A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The question that arises here is why do we actually need to define what a tuple is. Tuples are associated with contact addresses so that you can describe both devices and services without defining what they are. In my mind, the 4 major differences between services and devices are: 1. A service may be available simultaneously from more than one device 2. A service may be available each time from a different device 3. A service may not be associated with any device (e.g., email) 4. The presence information of a service _may_ be affected by the presence info of the device (but not the other way around) Presence tuples should be able to describe a complex world of services and devices, and since services might be running on specific devices, there is coupling between the two. You can either duplicate the data or reference another tuple but you still need to compose the tuples in a way that the combined device-service information is understood by watchers. If we want to have only one type of tuple, I would go for the opposite solution where a device can be considered a service. For example, my mobile phone, which has several communications capabilities (e.g., voice, sms, mms etc.) may be considered as a "phone service". Oded Cnaan > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:15 AM > > To: Rosen, Brian > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:45, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > > You aren't helping :) > > > > Sorry, I am having some difficulty expressing the concept. > > > > > > > > Do you see a useful distinction between a "user" and a "service" > > > in the context of presence? By that do you see a need for > > > one person to have multiple services where there is a need show, > > > for a single presentity each of the services? > > > > > > So, what does the word "service" mean in this context? Is IM > > in general > > a service, where I might have multiple URIs at which I can > > accept IMs at > > some time or another? Or is a "service" something that runs on a > > particular address and port (i.e., on a device), If you mean > > the second, > > then I can construct a URI that refers to the service, which I think > > makes the distinction between service and device irrelevant. > > > > But I _think_ we mean the first. So, I _think_ your question > > refers to, > > for example, the idea that I might have a voice service and an IM > > service, each of which has several possible contact > > addresses. Further, > > I might want to assert something about the IM service, that > applies to > > _all_ IM contacts. I think this idea has some use, but could > > be modeled > > by simply applying the same attribute to each IM related > tuple, rather > > than having some special "service" tuple. > > > > Sorry if this continues to not help, but I honestly think that not > > everyone participating in this tread shares the same > definition of the > > term "service" > > > > > > > > > > I'm having trouble here. I don't like showing devices, but too > > > many people think there is value in having a single > presence system > > > that implements a presentity that publishes presence for each of > > > the devices. Here I want to ask if there is need to show presence > > > for separate applications/services? > > > > > > Brian > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F919.15B6341A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling

 The question that arises here is why do we actually need to
 define what a tuple is. Tuples are associated with contact
 addresses so that you can describe both devices and services
 without defining what they are.
 
 In my mind, the 4 major differences between services and devices are:
 
 1. A service may be available simultaneously from more than one device
 2. A service may be available each time from a different device
 3. A service may not be associated with any device (e.g., email)
 4. The presence information of a service _may_ be affected by
 the presence info of the device (but not the other way around)
 
 Presence tuples should be able to describe a complex world of
 services and devices, and since services might be running on
 specific devices, there is coupling between the two. You can
 either duplicate the data or reference another tuple but you
 still need to compose the tuples in a way that the combined
 device-service information is understood by watchers.
 
 If we want to have only one type of tuple, I would go for the
 opposite solution where a device can be considered a service.
 For example, my mobile phone, which has several
 communications capabilities (e.g., voice, sms, mms etc.) may
 be considered as a "phone service".
 
 Oded Cnaan
 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:15 AM
> > To: Rosen, Brian
> > Cc: Cnaan Oded; 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG
> > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:45, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > > You aren't helping :)
> >
> > Sorry, I am having some difficulty expressing the concept.
> >
> > >
> > > Do you see a useful distinction between a "user" and a "service"
> > > in the context of presence?  By that do you see a need for
> > > one person to have multiple services where there is a need show,
> > > for a single presentity each of the services?
> >
> >
> > So, what does the word "service" mean in this context? Is IM
> > in general
> > a service, where I might have multiple URIs at which I can
> > accept IMs at
> > some time or another? Or is a "service" something that runs on a
> > particular address and port (i.e., on a device), If you mean
> > the second,
> > then I can construct a URI that refers to the service, which I think
> > makes the distinction between service and device irrelevant.
> >
> > But I _think_ we mean the first. So, I _think_ your question
> > refers to,
> > for example, the idea that I might have a voice service and an IM
> > service, each of which has several possible contact
> > addresses. Further,
> > I might want to assert something about the IM service, that
> applies to
> > _all_ IM contacts. I think this idea has some use, but could
> > be modeled
> > by simply applying the same attribute to each IM related
> tuple, rather
> > than having some special "service" tuple.
> >
> > Sorry if this continues to not help, but I honestly think that not
> > everyone participating in this tread shares the same
> definition of the
> > term "service"
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm having trouble here.  I don't like showing devices, but too
> > > many people think there is value in having a single
> presence system
> > > that implements a presentity that publishes presence for each of
> > > the devices.  Here I want to ask if there is need to show presence
> > > for separate applications/services?
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F919.15B6341A-- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 08:20:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08249 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:20:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32DiMl06259 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:44:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DiMK06256 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:44:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08162 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32Di5K06215; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:44:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DhIK06140 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:43:18 -0500 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08017 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16596; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:20:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00333; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2BDHY7FS>; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:20:31 -0500 Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF030B5FF3@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> From: "Rosen, Brian" To: "'Cnaan Oded'" , "'Ben Campbell'" Cc: "'Sean Olson'" , Jonathan Rosenberg , Simple WG Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:20:30 -0500 Oded We need to define what a tuple is because we keep getting wrapped around the axle on what it means when we define the contents of one, or the relationship between them. We can certainly ignore the problem, the only consequence of which is that many watchers won't interpret information presentities think is perfectly obvious. If your watcher registers at my presence service, I'm going to send you ONE tuple, with ONE URI that tells you how available I am for voice, video and IM. What is your watcher going to do? If your presence service delivers my watcher a dozen tuples, each describing presence for one service on one device, how is my watcher supposed to figure out the relationships? Worse, if you as a user have six service providers each of which provide a few of these tuples, what do you suppose the chances that my watcher can provide a coherent display of your presence are? Brian -----Original Message----- From: Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:00 AM To: 'Ben Campbell'; Rosen, Brian Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling The question that arises here is why do we actually need to define what a tuple is. Tuples are associated with contact addresses so that you can describe both devices and services without defining what they are. In my mind, the 4 major differences between services and devices are: 1. A service may be available simultaneously from more than one device 2. A service may be available each time from a different device 3. A service may not be associated with any device (e.g., email) 4. The presence information of a service _may_ be affected by the presence info of the device (but not the other way around) Presence tuples should be able to describe a complex world of services and devices, and since services might be running on specific devices, there is coupling between the two. You can either duplicate the data or reference another tuple but you still need to compose the tuples in a way that the combined device-service information is understood by watchers. If we want to have only one type of tuple, I would go for the opposite solution where a device can be considered a service. For example, my mobile phone, which has several communications capabilities (e.g., voice, sms, mms etc.) may be considered as a "phone service". Oded Cnaan > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:15 AM > To: Rosen, Brian > Cc: Cnaan Oded; 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:45, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > You aren't helping :) > > Sorry, I am having some difficulty expressing the concept. > > > > > Do you see a useful distinction between a "user" and a "service" > > in the context of presence? By that do you see a need for > > one person to have multiple services where there is a need show, > > for a single presentity each of the services? > > > So, what does the word "service" mean in this context? Is IM > in general > a service, where I might have multiple URIs at which I can > accept IMs at > some time or another? Or is a "service" something that runs on a > particular address and port (i.e., on a device), If you mean > the second, > then I can construct a URI that refers to the service, which I think > makes the distinction between service and device irrelevant. > > But I _think_ we mean the first. So, I _think_ your question > refers to, > for example, the idea that I might have a voice service and an IM > service, each of which has several possible contact > addresses. Further, > I might want to assert something about the IM service, that applies to > _all_ IM contacts. I think this idea has some use, but could > be modeled > by simply applying the same attribute to each IM related tuple, rather > than having some special "service" tuple. > > Sorry if this continues to not help, but I honestly think that not > everyone participating in this tread shares the same definition of the > term "service" > > > > > > I'm having trouble here. I don't like showing devices, but too > > many people think there is value in having a single presence system > > that implements a presentity that publishes presence for each of > > the devices. Here I want to ask if there is need to show presence > > for separate applications/services? > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:33 PM > > > To: Cnaan Oded > > > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > > > > As I think about this, I come to the conclusion that the > distinction > > > between services and devices is not entirely clear in > this context. > > > Brian modeled as devices running one or more services, but I think > > > others may be thinking of a service as something that may run > > > on one or > > > more devices. > > > > > > Is the distinction that a device is something we can > represent with a > > > URI, and a service is not? That seems a little unnatural. > Applications > > > running on a device typically _can_ be represented by URIs, > > > at least if > > > we are expected to talk to them. Even in your email > example, there may > > > not be a clear device, but there _is_ an addressable entity; > > > that is, I > > > could get a mailto: URL in a tuple contact, and do something > > > useful with > > > it. > > > > > > If we are thinking in terms of multiple addressable entities > > > being part > > > of a service, that would seem to impy a way to assign a value > > > to a group > > > of tuples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 01:02, Cnaan Oded wrote: > > > > I think that forcing all tuples to represent devices > would be too > > > > limiting in the real world. As I mentioned in my previous > > > email, there > > > > are also services without devices (e.g., email) and > cases where the > > > > service is using an unknown device. A more general > solution would be > > > > to allow a tuple to represent either a service or a device. > > > > > > > > I believe that solving the problem of relationship between > > > tuples and > > > > tuple context would not be enough. The issue of how a service > > > > (application) reports on which device it is running is > > > crucial for the > > > > completeness of the solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oded Cnaan > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:25 AM > > > > > To: Rosen, Brian; Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a reasonable way forward. My only > > > > > comment is that we might wish to model applications > > > > > independent of a device, but that could be a future > > > > > improvement. > > > > > > > > > > Based on this understanding, it would seem that > > > > > tuple == device? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Rosen, Brian" wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the time has come to take this particular > > > > > > bull by the horns > > > > > > and make it EXPLICIT what the tuple represents. > > > > > > We've had > > > > > > too many disagreements on mechanisms where the > > > > > > parties want the > > > > > > tuple to represent different things. Our solutions > > > > > > thus far > > > > > > usually mean widening options to make all things > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pehaps we can make an explicit tree shaped hierarchy > > > > > > where a > > > > > > User may have a series of > > > > > > Devices, each one of which may have a > > > number of > > > > > > Applications > > > > > > Each of these can provide presence. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go this far, I'd like links between > > > > > > them (parent/sibling) > > > > > > so that in a real world mixed environment, you have > > > > > > a chance to > > > > > > figure out what is happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seancolson@yahoo.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:11 PM > > > > > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > > > Cc: Cnaan Oded; simple@ietf.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Simple] Tuple references and device > > > > > > coupling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Understood... now the next immediate question is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the syntax provided by PIDF contain the > > > > > > > semantics of device, application, and user? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you can build this with the syntax of > > > > > > > a tuple. The problem is that you can build this > > > > > > > in more than one way and there is no clear > > > > > > > standard way to do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping that RPIDS would solve this, at > > > > > > > least for the SIMPLE community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Jonathan Rosenberg > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It all comes back to the same problem - what > > > > > > does a > > > > > > > > tuple represent? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, tuples (and in general, a presence > > > > > > > > document) are tools for > > > > > > > > modeling real-world systems that have components > > > > > > > > like people, devices, > > > > > > > > applications, and so on. We NEED to have > > > > > > agreed-upon > > > > > > > > definitions of what > > > > > > > > a tuple is, and how it is used to model > > > > > > real-world > > > > > > > > systems, or these > > > > > > > > problems will continue to plague us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Oded is saying is that the presence > > > > > > document > > > > > > > > has to take into > > > > > > > > account the fact that there are relationships > > > > > > > > between devices and > > > > > > > > applications in the real world, and the model > > > > > > needs > > > > > > > > to take that into > > > > > > > > account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Olson wrote: > > > > > > > > > There seems to be a third option which is > > > > > > popular > > > > > > > > > as well. The tuple ID is just an ordering > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > within an XML document to determine when > > > > > > tuples > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > added and removed. Additional syntax is then > > > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > > to achieve the semantics of device/service > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > mention below. This appears to be the approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adopted in the RPIDS draft. Perhaps Henning or > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > can comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Cnaan Oded > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Although the question "what a tuple > > > > > > represents" > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > >>not been discussed in > > > > > > > > >>depth yet, it seems that most implementation > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > >>chosen to either represent > > > > > > > > >>devices or services. For example, a tuple may > > > > > > > > >>represent a cell phone but can > > > > > > > > >>also represent an IM client running on a > > > > > > mobile > > > > > > > > >>phone. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Here is a simple example of 2 such tuples: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf" > > > > > > > > >> entity="pres:someone@example.com"> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> tel:09012345678 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > > >> busy > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>There are cases where there is a relationship > > > > > > > > >>between these tuples. For > > > > > > > > >>example, in the above example, the IM client > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >>running on the same device > > > > > > > > >>described by the first tuple, meaning that > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > >>might be some information > > > > > > > > >>(e.g., location) that is related to both > > > > > > tuples. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>One approach to handle it would be to > > > > > > duplicate > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >>information. Having > > > > > > > > >>'Location' described in the tuple representing > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >>device as well as the one > > > > > > > > >>representing the service. This approach is not > > > > > > > > >>efficient in terms of volume > > > > > > > > >>as many tuples might relate to the same > > > > > > > > information. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Another possible solution would be to create a > > > > > > > > >>reference between tuples, in > > > > > > > > >>this example between a "service tuple" and a > > > > > > > > "device > > > > > > > > >>tuple". In this case, > > > > > > > > >>the information is described only once but is > > > > > > > > >>referenced from other tuples. > > > > > > > > >>For example: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> open > > > > > > > > >> busy > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> sip:user@domain.com > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Following the latter option, the device > > > > > > status, > > > > > > > > >>location, LCD resolution or > > > > > > > > >>any other attributes associated with the > > > > > > device > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > >>be picked up from the > > > > > > > > >>"phone" tuple so that the "mobile-im" tuple > > > > > > > > >>represents only the service > > > > > > > > >>characteristics. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Following the above example, if the user is on > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >>call, and his device state > > > > > > > > >>changes from "open" to "call" (assuming this > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > >>valid value), the "phone" > > > > > > > > >>tuple is the only one that changes (and will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your > > > > desktop! > > > > > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 08:34:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08846 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32DwMg07277 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:58:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DwMK07274 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:58:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08835 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32Dw9K07238; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:58:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DvOK07184 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:57:24 -0500 Received: from il-tlv-smtpout2.icomverse.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08755 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by il-tlv-smtpout2.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32DYin06760; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:34:44 +0300 Received: by il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:34:52 +0300 Message-ID: <385D702A9C11D511A9E90008C7160AD5054541F7@ISMAIL1> From: Cnaan Oded To: "'Rosen, Brian'" , Cnaan Oded , "'Ben Campbell'" Cc: "'Sean Olson'" , Jonathan Rosenberg , Simple WG Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2F91C.A31ECB20" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:34:51 +0300 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F91C.A31ECB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Brian, I totally agree with you and this is exactly why I started this thread. In my previous email I related to Ben Campbell's observations regarding the need to have tuples that represent services. Oded Cnaan > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:21 PM > To: 'Cnaan Oded'; 'Ben Campbell' > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > Oded > > We need to define what a tuple is because we keep getting > wrapped around the axle on what it means when we define the contents > of one, or the relationship between them. We can certainly > ignore the problem, the only consequence of which is that > many watchers won't interpret information presentities think is > perfectly obvious. > > If your watcher registers at my presence service, I'm going to > send you ONE tuple, with ONE URI that tells you how available > I am for voice, video and IM. What is your watcher going to do? > > If your presence service delivers my watcher a dozen tuples, > each describing presence for one service on one device, how is > my watcher supposed to figure out the relationships? > Worse, if you as a user have six service providers each of which > provide a few of these tuples, what do you suppose the chances > that my watcher can provide a coherent display of your presence are? > > Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:00 AM > To: 'Ben Campbell'; Rosen, Brian > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > The question that arises here is why do we actually need to > define what a > tuple is. Tuples are associated with contact addresses so that you can > describe both devices and services without defining what they are. > In my mind, the 4 major differences between services and devices are: > 1. A service may be available simultaneously from more than > one device > 2. A service may be available each time from a different device > 3. A service may not be associated with any device (e.g., email) > 4. The presence information of a service _may_ be affected by > the presence > info of the device (but not the other way around) > Presence tuples should be able to describe a complex world of > services and > devices, and since services might be running on specific > devices, there is > coupling between the two. You can either duplicate the data > or reference > another tuple but you still need to compose the tuples in a > way that the > combined device-service information is understood by watchers. > If we want to have only one type of tuple, I would go for the opposite > solution where a device can be considered a service. For > example, my mobile > phone, which has several communications capabilities (e.g., > voice, sms, mms > etc.) may be considered as a "phone service". > > Oded Cnaan ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F91C.A31ECB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling

Brian,

I totally agree with you and this is exactly why I = started this thread. In my previous email I related to Ben Campbell's = observations regarding the need to have tuples that represent = services.

 
Oded Cnaan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:21 PM
> To: 'Cnaan Oded'; 'Ben Campbell'
> Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple = WG
> Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and = device coupling
>
>
> Oded
>
> We need to define what a tuple is because we = keep getting
> wrapped around the axle on what it means when = we define the contents
> of one, or the relationship between them.  = We can certainly
> ignore the problem, the only consequence of = which is that
> many watchers won't interpret information = presentities think is
> perfectly obvious.
>
> If your watcher registers at my presence = service, I'm going to
> send you ONE tuple, with ONE URI that tells you = how available
> I am for voice, video and IM.  What is = your watcher going to do?
>
> If your presence service delivers my watcher a = dozen tuples,
> each describing presence for one service on one = device, how is
> my watcher supposed to figure out the = relationships?
> Worse, if you as a user have six service = providers each of which
> provide a few of these tuples, what do you = suppose the chances
> that my watcher can provide a coherent display = of your presence are?
>
> Brian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:00 AM
> To: 'Ben Campbell'; Rosen, Brian
> Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple = WG
> Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and = device coupling
>
>
> The question that arises here is why do we = actually need to
> define what a
> tuple is. Tuples are associated with contact = addresses so that you can
> describe both devices and services without = defining what they are.
> In my mind, the 4 major differences between = services and devices are:
> 1. A service may be available simultaneously = from more than
> one device
> 2. A service may be available each time from a = different device
> 3. A service may not be associated with any = device (e.g., email)
> 4. The presence information of a service _may_ = be affected by
> the presence
> info of the device (but not the other way = around)
> Presence tuples should be able to describe a = complex world of
> services and
> devices, and since services might be running on = specific
> devices, there is
> coupling between the two. You can either = duplicate the data
> or reference
> another tuple but you still need to compose the = tuples in a
> way that the
> combined device-service information is = understood by watchers.
> If we want to have only one type of tuple, I = would go for the opposite
> solution where a device can be considered a = service. For
> example, my mobile
> phone, which has several communications = capabilities (e.g.,
> voice, sms, mms
> etc.) may be considered as a "phone = service".
> 
> Oded Cnaan

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F91C.A31ECB20-- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 09:02:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09558 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:02:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32EQTs09812 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:26:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EQSK09809 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:26:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09550 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EQFK09795; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:26:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EPVK09718 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:25:31 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09518 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:00:43 -0500 (EST) From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.5) with ESMTP id h32E7A518396 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:07:10 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:03:11 +0300 Received: from esebe019.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.58]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:03:11 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Message-ID: <2038BCC78B1AD641891A0D1AE133DBB7FE7482@esebe019.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Thread-Index: AcL5HNRHPh81j8e5Q7SGJ3y4PF42XgAAOMbw To: , , Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2003 14:03:11.0012 (UTC) FILETIME=[985A4E40:01C2F920] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h32EPVK09719 Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:03:10 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit How useful is a device that does not have any services on it? Pretty useless. What does it mean when a device publishes a tuple saying that this device is OPEN? Open for what? There must be a service running on it. You might ask "what about email?". Well, that's a service. If a device is going to publish presence info about another device, then it's really publishing presence info about the services on that device. Can a tuple, representing a device, carry presence info about all services on that device? Can a tuple, representing a service, carry presence info about all devices enabled with that service? If not, then each device has to publish a separate tuple for a service. It is the job of the compositor to combine those. I fail to see how those can be combined per device. Regards, Hisham -----Original Message----- From: ext Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:35 PM To: 'Rosen, Brian'; Cnaan Oded; 'Ben Campbell' Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Brian, I totally agree with you and this is exactly why I started this thread. In my previous email I related to Ben Campbell's observations regarding the need to have tuples that represent services. Oded Cnaan > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:21 PM > To: 'Cnaan Oded'; 'Ben Campbell' > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > Oded > > We need to define what a tuple is because we keep getting > wrapped around the axle on what it means when we define the contents > of one, or the relationship between them. We can certainly > ignore the problem, the only consequence of which is that > many watchers won't interpret information presentities think is > perfectly obvious. > > If your watcher registers at my presence service, I'm going to > send you ONE tuple, with ONE URI that tells you how available > I am for voice, video and IM. What is your watcher going to do? > > If your presence service delivers my watcher a dozen tuples, > each describing presence for one service on one device, how is > my watcher supposed to figure out the relationships? > Worse, if you as a user have six service providers each of which > provide a few of these tuples, what do you suppose the chances > that my watcher can provide a coherent display of your presence are? > > Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cnaan Oded [mailto:Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:00 AM > To: 'Ben Campbell'; Rosen, Brian > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > The question that arises here is why do we actually need to > define what a > tuple is. Tuples are associated with contact addresses so that you can > describe both devices and services without defining what they are. > In my mind, the 4 major differences between services and devices are: > 1. A service may be available simultaneously from more than > one device > 2. A service may be available each time from a different device > 3. A service may not be associated with any device (e.g., email) > 4. The presence information of a service _may_ be affected by > the presence > info of the device (but not the other way around) > Presence tuples should be able to describe a complex world of > services and > devices, and since services might be running on specific > devices, there is > coupling between the two. You can either duplicate the data > or reference > another tuple but you still need to compose the tuples in a > way that the > combined device-service information is understood by watchers. > If we want to have only one type of tuple, I would go for the opposite > solution where a device can be considered a service. For > example, my mobile > phone, which has several communications capabilities (e.g., > voice, sms, mms > etc.) may be considered as a "phone service". > > Oded Cnaan _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 09:17:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09907 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32EfhH11324 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:41:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EfhK11321 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:41:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09886 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:16:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EfaK11308; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:41:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EcfK11134 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:38:41 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09826 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:13:53 -0500 (EST) From: aki.niemi@nokia.com Received: from esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir01nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.33]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.5) with ESMTP id h32EEoN22312 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:14:50 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:16:21 +0300 Received: from esebe013.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.52]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:16:21 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Message-ID: <98C7D2E5BCD2374C9AAE0BCD2E9C1DD9019451F4@esebe013.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Thread-Index: AcL5Gze7Ev/drDTkSSmpqEa3RBYCvQAAuWLg To: , , Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2003 14:16:21.0059 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F41E930:01C2F922] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h32EcfK11135 Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:16:20 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Brian, all, Some comments/questions below. > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com] > Sent: 02 April, 2003 16:21 > To: 'Cnaan Oded'; 'Ben Campbell' > Cc: 'Sean Olson'; Jonathan Rosenberg; Simple WG > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > Oded > > We need to define what a tuple is because we keep getting > wrapped around the axle on what it means when we define the contents > of one, or the relationship between them. We can certainly > ignore the problem, the only consequence of which is that > many watchers won't interpret information presentities think is > perfectly obvious. > > If your watcher registers at my presence service, I'm going to > send you ONE tuple, with ONE URI that tells you how available > I am for voice, video and IM. What is your watcher going to do? > > If your presence service delivers my watcher a dozen tuples, > each describing presence for one service on one device, how is > my watcher supposed to figure out the relationships? By device, do you mean that each one has a unique contact address, some other unique identifier, or a specific device type (phone, mobile, PDA)? Also, can you elaborate a little bit on what the relationship beyond belonging to the same presentity we need for those tuples? > Worse, if you as a user have six service providers each of which > provide a few of these tuples, what do you suppose the chances > that my watcher can provide a coherent display of your presence are? Isn't it just as likely for a user to be a principal of several presentities, each provided by a different service provider? In that case the chances are no better or worse. Cheers, Aki _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 09:33:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10496 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:33:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32EwA612331 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:58:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EwAK12328 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:58:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10474 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:33:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32Ew4K12311; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:58:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EveK12272 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:57:40 -0500 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10451 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:32:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20132; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11512; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2BDHY93V>; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:35:19 -0500 Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF030B5FF7@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> From: "Rosen, Brian" To: "'aki.niemi@nokia.com'" , Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com, bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com Cc: seancolson@yahoo.com, jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com, simple@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:35:17 -0500 > > If your watcher registers at my presence service, I'm going to > > send you ONE tuple, with ONE URI that tells you how available > > I am for voice, video and IM. What is your watcher going to do? > > > > If your presence service delivers my watcher a dozen tuples, > > each describing presence for one service on one device, how is > > my watcher supposed to figure out the relationships? > > By device, do you mean that each one has a unique contact > address, some other unique identifier, or a specific device > type (phone, mobile, PDA)? Yes > > Also, can you elaborate a little bit on what the relationship > beyond belonging to the same presentity we need for those tuples? It seems that some want to know either all the service on one device or all the devices on one service. > > > Worse, if you as a user have six service providers each of which > > provide a few of these tuples, what do you suppose the chances > > that my watcher can provide a coherent display of your > presence are? > > Isn't it just as likely for a user to be a principal of > several presentities, each provided by a different service > provider? In that case the chances are no better or worse. If we make PDIF/RPIDS straightforward enough, then a compositor can aggregate, and a watcher can produce a coherent picture of the user. If we have a zillion different ways of representing the information, then there is no such hope. Right now, without more definition and more linkages, I think there is no way to do that. I'm already worried about Jonathan's URI per device (actually I think he wants URI per service per device) and my single URI being tough to reconcile between implementations. This adds yet more ways to have implementations non-interoperable. Just the one multiple device per service vs. multiple services per device is enough confusion. Both clearly will occur. The question is how to represent it so the relationships are obvious. Brian _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 09:49:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11044 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32FEFq14103 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:14:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32FEEK14100 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:14:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11028 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32FE7K14092; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:14:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32FDeK14063 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:13:40 -0500 Received: from il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11022 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32EoSD06353; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:50:28 +0300 Received: by il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:50:39 +0300 Message-ID: <385D702A9C11D511A9E90008C7160AD5054541FD@ISMAIL1> From: Cnaan Oded To: "'hisham.khartabil@nokia.com'" , Brian.Rosen@marconi.com, bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com Cc: seancolson@yahoo.com, jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com, simple@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2F925.E141CDCC" Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:50:36 +0300 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F925.E141CDCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" inline Oded Cnaan > -----Original Message----- > From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:03 PM > To: Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com; Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; > bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com > Cc: seancolson@yahoo.com; jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com; simple@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling > > > How useful is a device that does not have any services on it? > Pretty useless. What does it mean when a device publishes a > tuple saying that this device is OPEN? Open for what? There > must be a service running on it. > A device with no service might be very meaningful as it still allows you to make decisions regarding how to communicate. Remember that devices (although not all devices, and these might not have a tuple) such as mobile phones are capable of communicating without running any services. A mobile phone tuple may represent the ability to call, send SMS or leave a VM, depending on the device status (on/off/call). BTW, in one of my previous email I even suggested that such a device may be treated as a service of its own. > You might ask "what about email?". Well, that's a service. If > a device is going to publish presence info about another > device, then it's really publishing presence info about the > services on that device. > I agree that email is a service and not a device. > Can a tuple, representing a device, carry presence info about > all services on that device? This is one approach but it has limitations: 1. Change in a service will require sending ALL the device information again 2. It would be very complicated to parse and understand the hierarchy 3. It's very difficult to create child/sibling relationship, not to mention inheritance. 4. How would you reference a specific service within the device (for example for publishing purposes) > Can a tuple, representing a service, carry presence info > about all devices enabled with that service? > Same as above > If not, then each device has to publish a separate tuple for > a service. It is the job of the compositor to combine those. > I fail to see how those can be combined per device. > I agree and think that this is a very good solution to have a separate tuple for each service and each device with references that save data duplication. > Regards, > Hisham > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F925.E141CDCC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling

inline
 
Oded Cnaan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia= .com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: Oded.Cnaan@comverse.com; = Brian.Rosen@marconi.com;
> bcampbell@dynamicsoft.com
> Cc: seancolson@yahoo.com; = jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com; simple@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and = device coupling
>
>
> How useful is a device that does not have any = services on it?
> Pretty useless. What does it mean when a device = publishes a
> tuple saying that this device is OPEN? Open for = what? There
> must be a service running on it.
>

A device with no service might be very meaningful as = it still allows you to make decisions regarding how to communicate. = Remember that devices (although not all devices, and these might not = have a tuple) such as mobile phones are capable of communicating = without running any services. A mobile phone tuple may represent the = ability to call, send SMS or leave a VM, depending on the device status = (on/off/call).

BTW, in one of my previous email I even suggested = that such a device may be treated as a service of its own.

> You might ask "what about email?". = Well, that's a service. If
> a device is going to publish presence info = about another
> device, then it's really publishing presence = info about the
> services on that device.
>

I agree that email is a service and not a = device.

> Can a tuple, representing a device, carry = presence info about
> all services on that device?

This is one approach but it has limitations:
1. Change in a service will require sending ALL the = device information again
2. It would be very complicated to parse and = understand the hierarchy
3. It's very difficult to create child/sibling = relationship, not to mention inheritance.
4. How would you reference a specific service within = the device (for example for publishing purposes)

> Can a tuple, representing a service, carry = presence info
> about all devices enabled with that = service?
>

Same as above

> If not, then each device has to publish a = separate tuple for
> a service. It is the job of the compositor to = combine those.
> I fail to see how those can be combined per = device.
>

I agree and think that this is a very good solution = to have a separate tuple for each service and each device with = references that save data duplication.

> Regards,
> Hisham
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2F925.E141CDCC-- _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list Simple@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 2 09:50:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11070 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h32FF7Y14178 for simple-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:15:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32FF7K14175 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:15:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11064 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:50:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32FF1K14164; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:15:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h32FErK14141 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:14:53 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11059 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:50:04 -0500 (EST) From: aki.niemi@nokia.com Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.5) with ESMTP id h32Ep1N17339 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:51:01 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:52:31 +0300 Received: from esebe013.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.52]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6139); Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:52:31 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Message-ID: <98C7D2E5BCD2374C9AAE0BCD2E9C1DD9019451F5@esebe013.ntc.nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Simple] Tuple references and device coupling Thread-Index: AcL5JSCh1tqOpoH2Q9C813xO/eoOeQAAOHFg To: , , Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2003 14:52:31.0780 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D1BA640:01C2F927] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h32FErK14142 Sender: simple-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: simple-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:52:31 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Brian, Ok, I think I understand the problem you're referring to about forming a coherent picture of a user. I think part of (if not all) the problem is in the publishing side, namely multiple PUAs publishing the same "service". In the publish work, the composer is assumed to reconcile these collisions, so that the watcher always has a coherent view. I believe the