Subject: [Simple] Nits on RPID

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:01:01 -0400

I just read thru this semi-carefully. I found a few odds and ends, below.

	Paul

Section 4.4: there is one use of <contacttype> while elsewhere 
(including the schema) it is <contact-type>.

There is a style conflict between the naming of elements <contact-type> 
and <placetype>. It would be more consistent to either always hyphenate 
or never hypenate. But this is a nit. I would be inclined to make 
consistent if it won't slow things down. If this will cause delay I 
would live with it as is.

Section 4.7: some messups in here:

"a presentity might label her privacy as "quiet" when giving a talk"

"quiet" is a value for placetype, not privacy. Should be "private".

Last paragraph of this section refers to 'placetype', but should 
reference 'privacy'.

Section 4.8:

    If a relationship is indicated, the RPID <status> values describe the
    <contact>, not the presentity.

I think this should say "the PIDF <status> values". After all, <status> 
is defined in PIDF, not RPID, and the basic PIDF status also applies to 
the <contact> rather than the presentity.

Section 5.1:

       <ep:activity>
       <ep:activity>meeting</ep:activity></ep:activity>
should be:
       <ep:activities>
       <ep:activity>meeting</ep:activity></ep:activities>

later:

       <ep:privacy>quiet</ep:privacy>

While legal, is this the intent to show use of an unregistered token? 
Using as an example a token defined for placetype is at least a little 
confusing. This appears in two places in the example. Seems like in at 
least one of those it ought to use one of the registered values:

       <ep:privacy>private</ep:privacy>

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