Subject: RE: [Simple] Inter-domain Requirements for SIMPLE

From: "Orit Levin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:58:13 -0800

This requirement attempts to say:

A potential watcher asks a presentity to grant access to presentity's
presence information, but the watcher (or more precisely, its PS) is not
interested in the presence information being pushed on individual basis
from this point on. In other words, it can be implemented by just adding
the watcher to presentity's ACL. Or in case of groups, adding the
requesting watcher to a specific group.

Orit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:48 AM
To: Orit Levin
Cc: IETF SIMPLE WG; Avshalom Houri
Subject: Re: [Simple] Inter-domain Requirements for SIMPLE

Orit, Avshalom -

Thanks for submitting this draft. You've captured some
important thoughts around deploying presence systems that
deserve attention. I particularly look forward to the
discussions we'll have around section 7.3 (Grouping of
Watchers for SHARING of Presence Info).

One quick question: I don't understand what you're looking
for with the first requirement of 7.1:

   o  Presence access: It MUST be possible to request continuous
      access to the status of a remote presentity without
      "subscribing" to it.

Could you explain this a little more?

RjS

On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 17:33, Orit Levin wrote:
> Guys!
> We have submitted a requirements document for secure and efficient
> transfer of presence information over inter-domain links.
> Please, take a look at our thoughts and suggestions:
>  
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-simple-interdomain-reqs-
00.txt
>  
> We look forward to your feedbacks on how we can enhance SIMPLE to
> support these directions.
>  
> Thanks,
> Orit.

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

---

From: Alex Audu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:21:51 -0600

Orit,

This seems like a mechanism to optimize information trasnfer between a 
watcher's PS and
the remote PS containing the presesnce information of interest.  But the 
requirement is
specifying the possibility of "requesting" access to information 
"without subscribing " to it.
The common understanding in SIMPLE is you can't request for presence 
information without
subscribing to the presentity.   If you request for it, you must have 
subscribed to it. But you
don't want to be  transfering information to an endpoint that didn't 
subscribe to that information
just because you want to optimize bandwidth utilization or something 
like that.  Or am I missing
something?

Regards,
Alex.

---

From: Alex Audu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:21:51 -0600

Orit,

Regards,
Alex.

---

From: "Vikas Tandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:50:08 +0530

Alex,
This can be a case of group chat, A & C are in a group "business" and
are not subscribed to each other, still A can get the presence status of
C. By definition of fetcher too, A can get presence information of B
without having to subscribe to it.
Can these be a possible case!, would be nice to know thoughts of the
experts on this.
Regards,
Vikas Tandon
Arciis Software Technologies
www.arciis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Alex Audu
Sent: jeudi 26 février 2004 21:52
To: Orit Levin
Cc: Robert Sparks; IETF SIMPLE WG; Avshalom Houri
Subject: Re: [Simple] Inter-domain Requirements for SIMPLE

Orit,

Regards,
Alex.

Orit Levin wrote:

Orit.

-----Original Message-----

To: Orit Levin

Orit, Avshalom -

      "subscribing" to it.

RjS

Guys!

    

00.txt

Thanks,

Orit.

Simple mailing list

[email-masked]

---

From: "Vikas Tandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:50:08 +0530

Alex,

-----Original Message-----

Orit,

Regards,
Alex.

Orit Levin wrote:

Orit.

-----Original Message-----

To: Orit Levin

Orit, Avshalom -

      "subscribing" to it.

RjS

Guys!

    

00.txt

Thanks,

Orit.

Simple mailing list

[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:05:26 -0800

At 10:50 AM +0530 02/27/2004, Vikas Tandon wrote:
>Alex,
>This can be a case of group chat, A & C are in a group "business" 
>and are not subscribed to each other, still A can get the presence 
>status of C. By definition of fetcher too, A can get presence 
>information of B without having to subscribe to it.
><http://www.arciis.com>www.arciis.com

Could we hear a bit more about the use case here?  I am not sure
I understand how the group chat and the group "business" are
connected here.
		thanks,
			Ted Hardie

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:05:26 -0800

---

From: "Vikas Tandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:50:22 +0530

Hi Hardie/ Group, 
I'm taking  a case where in A &C are in a group chat (like the millions
of rooms on any commercial chat service today), now both of them can see
each other (say in the sidebar) as available but are not subscribed to
each other.
I might be talking non-SIMPLE but this can be a user case as per my
understanding, would appreciate correction if my line of thinking is
deviating from scope of SIMPLE.
Regards,
Vikas

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ted Hardie
Sent: vendredi 27 février 2004 12:35
To: Vikas Tandon; [email-masked]; 'Orit Levin'
Cc: 'Robert Sparks'; 'IETF SIMPLE WG'; 'Avshalom Houri'
Subject: RE: [Simple] Inter-domain Requirements for SIMPLE

><http://www.arciis.com>www.arciis.com

Could we hear a bit more about the use case here?  I am not sure I
understand how the group chat and the group "business" are connected
here.
		thanks,
			Ted Hardie

---

From: "Vikas Tandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:50:22 +0530

Hi Hardie/ Group,

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:12:43 -0800

>deviating from scope of SIMPLE.

Ah, I see.  In some cases you can even have a private sidebar conversation
using something like "[email-masked]/nickname"
without having any other contact data for them.  Thanks for the
clarification.

I don't personally think providing such a facility would be outside 
the scope of the
group at first reading (falling pretty much into the group chat scope),
but I would be interested to hear the group's thoughts on whether it would
be a first-pass piece of functionality.
			regards,
				Ted

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:12:43 -0800

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:55 -0500

Orit,

I am still confused on this requirement.

It sounds like what you want is for the watcher to find out if he has 
permission to subscribe or fetch presence from the presentity, without 
actually subscribing or fetching? In other words, it would be a request 
from the watcher to the presentity to ask the presentity to set an 
authorization policy for the watcher, in absence of any specific 
subscription. Is that right?

If so, what is the motivating use case here?

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:10:55 -0500

Orit,

THanks,
Jonathan R.