Subject: RE: [Simple] comments on rpids-01 - <info>

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:41:02 -0500

> 
> But I guess this is really secondary to my point - my point is that
> > <note> and <info> share the same motivation given rpids-00 today, and
that
> 
> Not really; <info> is information about the presentity, as a URI.
> 

rpids-00 does not say that <info> is information about the presentity. From
the note of mine to which you are responding:

> What I'm concerned about here is that there are two elements - <note> and
> <info> - that do the same thing, according to their respective
> specifications. As it's written, <info> provides "general information
about
> the tuple", and <note> in a tuple provides "a comment" "regarding the
> particular tuple". So when you have some information about a tuple, do you
> put it in a <note> or an <info>? 

If you want to change the definition of <info> in rpids-00 such that it
provides information about a presentity, then I'm at least a little clearer
as to how this is different from <note> (though perhaps not a
<presence>-level note). But again, in that case <homepage> or something as a
<presence>-level attribute would be preferable to <info> (although it is
debatably 'presence information' then).

[snip]
> 
> Think of this as "this is a link to information describing the tuple".
> 
> The reason for reference instead of value is simply efficiency.
> 

And as I said in my original note, I don't think that by-reference vs.
by-value alone is sufficient grounds to break backwards compatibility.

I think the text about <info> needs to reflect whether or not it contains
the same information that would appear ordinarily in a <note> (except it's
by-reference to save bytes or what have you) - and acknowledge that this is
an optimization that encourages information to appear exclusively for
RPIDS-friendly recipients, not for baseline PIDF recipients - or explain how
the information in <info> differs from <note>. But in the absence of such
further qualifications, I still think it should be removed.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

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