Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC on RPID, CIPID and future status [Future]

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:02:33 +0300

Hi:

Some comments about the future status draft. I read the working version 
stored at:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/timed-status/draft-ietf-simple-future-02.txt

- I miss the terminology section (definition of MUST, SHOULD, etc.) and 
the reference to RFC 2119

- Section 2:

    "The <timed-status> element can only appear within a PIDF <tuple>
    element. "

   shouldn't it be normative:

   "<time-status> elements MUST only appear as children of the PIDF 
<tuple> element."

- Section 2:

    "The <timed-status> element may contain any PIDF element, <basic> and
    <note>, as well as status extensions, such as RPID [3]."

    shouldn't the "may" be a normative "MAY" ?

    "The <timed-status> element MAY contain any PIDF element, <basic> and
    <note>, as well as status extensions, such as RPID [3]."

- Section 2:

    "However, not
    all elements in PIDF extensions are sensible in this context.  For
    example, information such as contact information [4] that does not
    change as a function of time is inappropriate for use with timed
    status."

    shouldn't we add a normative statement disallowing implementations 
to use <contact> elements in combination with <time-status>? Something like:

    "<time-status> elements MUST NOT contain child <contact> elements."

- Section 2: last paragraph. Since there is a dependency between 
<time-status> and <timestamp>, shouldn't we strongly recommend to use 
<timestamp> in combination with <time-status>?

   "It is RECOMMENDED to include a PIDF <timestamp> element whenever the 
<time-status> element is included in an XML document."

- Section 3: According to the PIDF, the <contact> element is ordered 
after the extensions. Therefore, the current tuple:

         <tuple id="7c8dqui">
           <contact>sip:[email-masked]</contact>
           <status>
             <basic>open</basic>
           </status>
           <fs:time-status from="2003-08-15T10:20:00.000-05:00"
              until="2003-08-22T19:30:00.000-05:00">
              <basic>closed</basic>
           </fs:timed-status>
         </tuple>

    should be:

         <tuple id="7c8dqui">
           <status>
             <basic>open</basic>
           </status>
           <fs:time-status from="2003-08-15T10:20:00.000-05:00"
              until="2003-08-22T19:30:00.000-05:00">
              <basic>closed</basic>
           </fs:timed-status>
           <contact>sip:[email-masked]</contact>
         </tuple>

- Section 3: shouldn't the example include a PIDF <timestamp> element, 
especially if it is recommended in the text?

- Section 3: I would recommend to replace the namespace prefix "fs" by 
"ts", since it represents the current initials of the draft.

- Section 4, Schema: shouldn't the definition of "note" include a 
minOccurs of zero? Without minOccurs, this element must be present in 
the document. So I suggest to replace:

           <xs:element name="note" type="pidf:note"/>

    with

           <xs:element name="note" type="pidf:note" minOccrus="0"/>

Regards,

       Miguel

ext [email-masked] wrote:

> The WG chairs would like to start a Working Group Last Call on the following drafts as part of the SIMPLE PIDF profile to be submitted to IESG:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-rpid-03.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-cipid-01.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-future-01.txt
> 
> This WGLC will end on May 11th.
> 
> Please send your comments to this mailing list and to the authors. 
> 
> If you reviewed the draft and found no issues, please indicate so on the mailing list. This will help us evaluate the level of review and group consensus.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hisham
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

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

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:02:33 +0300

Hi:

- Section 2:

- Section 2:

- Section 2:

    "However, not

         <tuple id="7c8dqui">

    should be:

         <tuple id="7c8dqui">
           <status>
             <basic>open</basic>
           </status>

    with

Regards,

       Miguel

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43:13 -0400

>   "<time-status> elements MUST only appear as children of the PIDF 

I agree that something more normative would be good. But your suggestion 
seems a bit over reaching. For instance, that might prevent it from 
being a child element of an xml2rfc document. :-)

How about confronting the real issue:

"The <timed-status> element MUST NOT appear as a child of a PIDF 
<status> element or another <timed-status> element."

>    shouldn't we add a normative statement disallowing implementations to 
> use <contact> elements in combination with <time-status>? Something like:
> 

Again over reaching. There certainly could be cases where the contact 
will change.

	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43:13 -0400

Paul

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 17:34:27 +0300

Paul, I think you are right in both issues. Let's go for your suggestions.

- Miguel

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 17:34:27 +0300

- Miguel

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:34:14 -0400

I made the changes, reflected in the current version, except as modified 
in later discussions and as noted below.

>    shouldn't the "may" be a normative "MAY" ?

No, this is just a statement of possibility, not compliance.

> <time-status> element is included in an XML document."

I'm not sure that's always true or required. I could have <timed-status> 
about the past and then have normal, non-timestamped <tuple>s reflecting 
the present state. Particularly if the timed-status is derived from 
calendar information and the regular "now" status from user input, it is 
hard to delineate the precise time range for the latter. This probably 
implies a precision that may not be warranted by the underlying data.

> especially if it is recommended in the text?

See above.

>           <xs:element name="note" type="pidf:note" minOccrus="0"/>

Noted.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:34:14 -0400

See above.

Noted.

---

From: "Yannis Pavlidis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:34:07 -0600

Hi,

Some comments on the
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/timed-status/draft-ietf-simple-future-0
2.txt.

1. The <timed-status> element MUST be qualified with the 'from'
   attribute and MAY be qualified with an 'until' attribute to describe
   the time when the status assumed this value and the time until which
   this element is expected to be valid.

a. What happens when I provide a 'from' attribute but not an 'until'
attribute? Is the status, note or other presence included in the
<timed-status> element that I published valid for ever (until I publish
something else to overwrite it?) or is it valid until my publication
expires?

It is not clear which are the semantics when the 'until' attribute is not
provided.

b. What happens to the presence information included in the <timed-status>
element when the value of the "until" attribute exceeds the publication
expiration?

c. Based on the above sentence I assume that the use of the 'from' attribute
is required. This is not depicted in the XML Schema definition:
"<xs:attribute name="from" type="xs:dateTime"/>".

If my above statement is correct I suggest the addition of the
use="required" attribute in the XML Schema definition.

Thanks,

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

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 5:34 PM
To: Miguel Garcia
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] WGLC on RPID, CIPID and future status [Future]

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/timed-status/draft-ietf-simple-future-0
2.txt

See above.

Noted.

---

From: "Yannis Pavlidis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:34:07 -0600

Hi,

Some comments on the

Thanks,

Yannis Pavlidis
Openwave Systems

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

See above.

Noted.