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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:00:59 -0400

I think I now better understand your question. This is indeed meant as 
more "long-term" information. The name and definition stems from the 
similarly-named field in the SIP Call-Info header. As usual, I'm not 
wedded to particular labels.

Thus, as you said, this falls into the open issue as to how this more 
longer-term material should be handled.

I will amplify the definition.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:00:59 -0400

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:36:06 -0400

I agree with Jon that something like <homepage> is far more preferable 
than <info>. Not only does this clearly delineate it from note, it 
makes it easier for an automata to do something useful with it (for 
example, add it to the "Homepages of My Friends" bookmark folder in my 
browser). <info> says nothing about whats in there.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:36:06 -0400

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:07:36 -0400

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> than <info>. Not only does this clearly delineate it from note, it makes 
> it easier for an automata to do something useful with it (for example, 
> add it to the "Homepages of My Friends" bookmark folder in my browser). 
> <info> says nothing about whats in there.
> 

I agree that anything with the word 'info' or INFO is probably suspect. 
My hesitation with naming it 'homepage' is that other URI types that 
don't point to a web page with your vacation pictures are also 
appropriate there, such as an LDAP URI or whois URI. <personalinfo> or 
something like that might work.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:07:36 -0400

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:47:33 -0400

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> appropriate there, such as an LDAP URI or whois URI. 

Well, those would be different. This is for homepages. I'm not saying 
that other things arent useful, I'm just saying that, since this 
information will be consumed by automata and not just rendered, we 
need to be as precise as possible about what it means.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:47:33 -0400

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:19:42 -0400

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> information will be consumed by automata and not just rendered, we need 
> to be as precise as possible about what it means.

I view an ldap: reference as a structured homepage, given that most 
homepages contain information on how to contact a person and that most 
browsers render LDAP URI as an HTML page. However, I doubt that it's 
worth making this a major issue, if we can describe the content 
appropriately. I gather you want to limit this "web home page".

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:19:42 -0400

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:24:49 -0400

> appropriately. I gather you want to limit this "web home page".

Yes. Again, the premise is that an automata has to know enough to do 
something with it. I think "web homepage" is sufficiently concrete to 
do useful things with (i.e., add it to bookmarks).

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:24:49 -0400

-Jonathan R.