Subject: [Simple] WGLC on Partial Notification

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:28:42 +0200

The WG chairs would like to start a Working Group Last Call on the following drafts:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-pidf-format-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify-01.txt

This WGLC will end on March 9th.

Please send your comments to this mailing list and to the authors.

Thanks,
Hisham

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

---

From: "Yannis Pavlidis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:45:07 -0700

Hi,

I wanted to make some comments on these 2 internet drafts.

1. It is mentioned (in http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23-series.htm
section 3.1 and
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify-01.txt
section 4.4) that the version MUST start from 0.
Though in the example included in the
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify-01.txt
in the F3 NOTIFY message the
version starts from 1.

This should be corrected to 0 and also in the next NOTIY (F5) the version
should be changed from 2 to 1.

2. What happens if a tuple appears in a partial notification both to be
deleted and updated? How should the subscriber process such a notification?
Is there any order in the way the subscriber processes the information
inside the notification? e.g. first the updated and then the deleted? I
believe there should some text explaining what happens in this scenario.

3. In the case of a refresh in the dialog (if the versions go out of synch)
are there any guidelines for the notifier regarding the selection of the
version in the notification that will contain full presence? Is it
incremented by 1(from the latest one), starts again from 0 or the notifier
picks a new random number as a starting point?

4. In the
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify-01.txt
sometimes the word dialog is used instead of subscription. I think we should
use subscription as a dialog may have more than one subscriptions (with
different ids) and notifications pertain to subscriptions. Examples can be
found in:
 - "The watcher MUST discard all previously received presence information
from that particular presentity in the context of current dialog"
    Instead of dialog it should say subscription

 - "In case the PS changes the content type used in notifications within the
existing dialog the watcher must discard all previously received presence
information from that particular presentity and process the new content as
specified for that content type".
    Instead of dialog it should say subscription

5. Finally, it is not mentioned what happens when the subscription expires
or when the subscriber unsubscribes. My guess is that a notification with
full state will be generated.

Regards,

Yannis Pavlidis
Openwave Systems
[email-masked]
+1-303 385 6695

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Simple] WGLC on Partial Notification

The WG chairs would like to start a Working Group Last Call on the following
drafts:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-pidf-format-00
.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify-01.txt

Thanks,
Hisham

---

From: "Yannis Pavlidis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:45:07 -0700

Hi,

4. In the

Regards,

Yannis Pavlidis
Openwave Systems

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

Thanks,
Hisham