Subject: [Simple] What can you do with a list?

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:03:06 -0400

Folks,

I'll be submitting a rev shortly to the xcap list draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-00.txt

There have been few comments on this document; its pretty straightforward.

One issue was raised to me privately by Markus, which I think merits 
broader discussion, is whether the scope of this draft is just 
presence lists, or whether it is broader than that. In a broader 
model, each URI representing a list has a set of permissible actions 
that can be taken against the list. We have "subscribable", which 
means you can subscribe to the list, but we could allow other things. 
For example, we could add "messageable", which means a MESSAGE request 
to that group we be exploded (using Gonzalo's terminology) to those 
members. "Invitable" would mean that an INVITE to that group would 
cause creation of a conference call to that group. Clearly this 
intersects with the conferencing work.

So, there are two questions:

(1) Do we want the draft to be broader than presence lists, and 
mention that these are lists to which different operations can be applied,

(2) Assuming (1), do we want to add explicit support for a 
"messageable" boolean?

I think we should definitely do (1), I have mixed feelings on (2), but 
am inclined to add it.

Comments?

THanks,
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

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:08:58 -0700

Hi Jonathan,
	I would suggest that if you decide to expand the scope of
the work to include other permissible actions, that those actions
be taken forward in separate drafts.  That might require some
re-writing of this draft (to make clear that the other drafts and
actions may exist later), but it would allow the more mature
work to proceed without blocking on the semantics of the other
actions.
	Purely  a personal commentary,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

At 3:03 PM -0400 10/17/2003, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>One issue was raised to me privately by Markus, which I think merits broader discussion, is whether the scope of this draft is just presence lists, or whether it is broader than that. In a broader model, each URI representing a list has a set of permissible actions that can be taken against the list. We have "subscribable", which means you can subscribe to the list, but we could allow other things. For example, we could add "messageable", which means a MESSAGE request to that group we be exploded (using Gonzalo's terminology) to those members. "Invitable" would mean that an INVITE to that group would cause creation of a conference call to that group. Clearly this intersects with the conferencing work.
>
>(1) Do we want the draft to be broader than presence lists, and mention that these are lists to which different operations can be applied,
>
>(2) Assuming (1), do we want to add explicit support for a "messageable" boolean?
>
>I think we should definitely do (1), I have mixed feelings on (2), but am inclined to add it.
>
>Comments?
>
>THanks,
>Jonathan R.
>--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:08:58 -0700

Hi Jonathan,

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:04:08 -0400

Ted,

What you are talking about would correspond to saying yes to option
(1) below, and no to option (2). Scope creep and immaturity were some 
of the reasons for my mixed feelings on (2). Does anyone strongly 
believe it should be added?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Hi Jonathan, I would suggest that if you decide to expand the scope
> of the work to include other permissible actions, that those
> actions be taken forward in separate drafts.  That might require
> some re-writing of this draft (to make clear that the other drafts
> and actions may exist later), but it would allow the more mature 
> actions. Purely  a personal commentary, regards, Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> 
>> One issue was raised to me privately by Markus, which I think
>> merits broader discussion, is whether the scope of this draft is
>> just presence lists, or whether it is broader than that. In a
>> broader model, each URI representing a list has a set of
>> permissible actions that can be taken against the list. We have
>> "subscribable", which means you can subscribe to the list, but we
>> could allow other things. For example, we could add
>> "messageable", which means a MESSAGE request to that group we be
>> exploded (using Gonzalo's terminology) to those members.
>> "Invitable" would mean that an INVITE to that group would cause
>> creation of a conference call to that group. Clearly this
>> THanks, 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Simple mailing
>> list [email-masked]

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:04:08 -0400

Ted,

Thanks,
Jonathan R.