Subject: [Simple] ad-hoc list subscriptions

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:11:14 -0500

Orit,

Some comments on:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-simple-adhoc-list-00.txt

Generally, I do think we need something like this. It seems 
particularly useful in environments where the list is not syncrhonized 
with the network, but for which we want to get the benefits of list 
subscriptions, in terms of reducing overhead.

Firstly, this feels to me like it has a lot in common with the filter 
work. Both this and the filter work use body objects to push policy 
about the subscription to the server. Both have needs for updates to 
these policy objects during the lifetime of the subscriptions. Both 
have similar lifecycle managamenet requirements. Both provide details 
on exactly what the subscription is for. Have you considered trying to 
unify this with the filter work? Indeed, it might be useful to start 
off with some requirements to define what we want to do here, we may 
not all be on the same page.

Secondly, one big question is - what is the request URI? I can see 
several options:

(1) its a well-known service URI, for example, 
sip:[email-masked], where the server knows that for any 
subscriptions to sip:adhoclist@<any domain>, it means that the 
subscription has its contents in the body

(2) its a SIP URI that doesnt match any existing resource in the 
domain. Thus, the act of subscribing basically creates that resource 
as a list resource

(3) its a CID URI, referring to the list in the body of the request

I think you have (2) in mind. But, I'm not sure thats the right way to 
go.

Thirdly, you talk about all subscribed parties to the list receiving a 
notify when the list content changes:

> When a resource is added to /deleted from the list, the RLS SHOULD
>    generate a NOTIFY as if the list had been updated by any possible
>    out-of-band means and in accordance with the notification mechanism
>    and format established for this list. The updated information SHOULD
>    be sent to all the parties being subscribed to this list (including
>    the "list-owner").

I dont get this. I thought that an ad-hoc list would be scoped to the 
subscription, in which case, there wouldnt be any other subscribers. 
Am I missing something?

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: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:39 -0600

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> Generally, I do think we need something like this. It seems particularly 
> useful in environments where the list is not syncrhonized with the 
> network, but for which we want to get the benefits of list 
> these policy objects during the lifetime of the subscriptions. Both have 
> similar lifecycle managamenet requirements. Both provide details on 
> exactly what the subscription is for. Have you considered trying to 
> unify this with the filter work? Indeed, it might be useful to start off 
> with some requirements to define what we want to do here, we may not all 
> be on the same page.
> 
> (1) its a well-known service URI, for example, sip:[email-masked], 
> where the server knows that for any subscriptions to sip:adhoclist@<any 
> domain>, it means that the subscription has its contents in the body
> 
> (2) its a SIP URI that doesnt match any existing resource in the domain. 
> Thus, the act of subscribing basically creates that resource as a list 
> resource
> 
> I think you have (2) in mind. But, I'm not sure thats the right way to go.
> 
> subscription, in which case, there wouldnt be any other subscribers. Am 
> I missing something?

There are also some statements about uniquely naming the list, which 
only seem to make sense to me if the list is expected to be used outside 
of the dialog.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:39 -0600

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:55:55 -0600

> subscription, in which case, there wouldnt be any other subscribers. Am 

Ok, assume I send an INVITE to an ad-hoc list, forming an ad-hoc 
conference. Would "members" of the list (i.e., participants in the 
conference) subscribe to the list, or to the conference in order to 
learn about changes to the participant set?

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:55:55 -0600

--
Dean