Subject: Re: [Simple] comments on rpids-01 - face-to-face

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:11 -0400

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Agreed; tentatively added as 'mediated' parameter in to-be-revised 
> capabilities element, as in
> 
> <capabilities mediated='face-to-face' ...>

Does this mean it also becomes a callee-caps parameter as well? Not 
sure what it means in that context...

-Jonathan R.

> 
> Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 
> 
>> In this case, I'd personally prefer an explicit indicator for 
>> 'available for
>> face-to-face' - I don't think this is something that should be derived
>> implicitly from the absence of a network-bound means of 
>> communications. Off
>> the top of my head, I think this should be deferred to the capability 
>> work
>> that had already been broken out of RPIDS (which seems to get more 
>> into the
>> "how"s of communication).
>>
>> Jon Peterson
>> NeuStar, Inc. 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> 

-- 
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

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:11 -0400

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:09:34 -0400

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> Does this mean it also becomes a callee-caps parameter as well? Not sure 
> what it means in that context...

I don't think inheritance has to be mutual; this seems like an example 
of something that makes sense in a tuple, but makes little sense in a 
callee caps case.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:09:34 -0400

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400

> of something that makes sense in a tuple, but makes little sense in a 

So, then why is it a capability at all? A capability is a capability, 
no matter whether its represented in a presence doc or in a URI parameter.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:25:54 -0400

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> So, then why is it a capability at all? A capability is a capability, no 
> matter whether its represented in a presence doc or in a URI parameter.

I agree that this can easily be elsewhere; it's probably a tuple-level 
parameter. Might this be a fourth label, next to 'device', 'presentity' 
and 'other'? After all, it would probably not be nice to humans to 
qualify a face-to-face contact as a 'device'.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:25:54 -0400

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:00:25 -0400

> qualify a face-to-face contact as a 'device'.

Sounds like the best suggestion so far.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:00:25 -0400

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:55:01 -0400

> qualify a face-to-face contact as a 'device'.

Why? People are just smart automatons. It is quite common to use people 
as automatons. Get over it and accept the assimilation. :-)

Personally I think this is just another communication means. And it 
isn't necessarily face-face either. I think all it really means is that 
the user has no available device to facilitate communication. If you 
want to talk, you could send an intermediary with a cell phone.

But given resistance to making something that can appear in a <contact> 
I guess a tuple-level parameter seems reasonable.

I agree that having this be the implicit meaning of a tuple without a 
contact is troubling. But then fixing this leaves us with the problem of 
the meaning of a tuple without either this or a contact. Apparently it 
is just noise, unless some other extension assigns it meaning.

	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:55:01 -0400

Paul

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:18:56 -0400

> I guess a tuple-level parameter seems reasonable.

Particularly since any designation of media is not quite orthogonal.

> is just noise, unless some other extension assigns it meaning.

You might want to describe just the location of the presentity, 
independent of the device, even though the person does not want to be 
contacted in person. As you say, this seems best defined implicitly by 
the presence of specific descriptors.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:18:56 -0400