Subject: [Simple] RPID comments

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:26:55 +0300

Hi,

Reviewed RPID at -04 and here are my findings. There were a couple of 
bigger issues that I had trouble understanding, for which I will send a 
separate note.

- Nit: should probably write open 'URI' in abstract.

- Nit: likewise for first occurences of XML and URI in the actual text.

- Nit: the hanging lists become hard to read with no empty lines between 
entries. Hoever, I see this may be an xml2rfc bug, so I guess I'll take 
it elsewhere.

- In activities, while all elements may be used either with OPEN or 
CLOSED status depending on the presentity's intent, this intent isn't 
described very well, except for "busy". For some activities such as 
"away" there seems to be a similar typical intent, which might be good 
to add.

- In 4.2, second paragraph after the list, should
's/The <activity> element/The <activities> element/' ?

- In 4.4, why distinguish between different tuple types when defining 
the <idle> element? I don't understand the second paragraph: What does 
it mean when the <idle> "determines the idle time for the whole tuple"? 
<idle> is always scoped to a single tuple irrespective of the tuple 
type, no?

- 4.5, should probably say something about the extensibility of the mood 
element? That in addition to the enumerated values, more can be added 
later (either freetext or registered).

- 4.10, come to think of it now, it seems that the CIPID <icon> should 
actually be an RPID element just like the status-icon is. Is there a 
difference other than that <icon> is a sibling of <presentity> or 
<tuple> whereas <status-icon> is of <status>?

Cheers,
Aki

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