Subject: [Simple] Re: WGLC Extension for RPID

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 16:53:27 -0400

Thanks for the comments. I folded them into the text.

Mary Barnes wrote:

> Abstract - I think the parenthetical reference to "the activity element" 
> should be "the activities element".  However, I also wonder if it's 
> particularly useful in the abstract to have all those parenthetical 
> references.  I realize then that you would need to expand what's in 
> section 4.1.  I would propose that you remove those parenthetical 
> references, leaving the descriptive text and re-iterate that information 
> in section 4.1 in the form of a list when you enumerate the elements, 
> which I think would improve readability, something like the following:
> 
>    " Below, we describe the RPID elements in detail.  The following RPID 
> elements
>      extend the PIDF <status> element:   

> Section 3 - I don't the example needs the parenthesis. It reads quite 
> well without.
> 
> Section 4.3 - Title should be "Class Element".  First sentence should be 
> changed from  "The 'class' attribute ..." to the "The 'class' element ..."
> 
> Section 4.6 - Title should be "Placetype Element" (or "Place-type 
> Element" depending upon how you resolve Paul's comment)
> 
> Regards,
> Mary H. Barnes
> [email-masked]

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 16:53:27 -0400

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:46:56 -0400

I did a review of the updated RPID draft
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/rpid/draft-ietf-simple-rpid-04.txt and
have a few comments (mostly nits):

Abstract - I think the parenthetical reference to "the activity element"
should be "the activities element".  However, I also wonder if it's
particularly useful in the abstract to have all those parenthetical
references.  I realize then that you would need to expand what's in section
4.1.  I would propose that you remove those parenthetical references,
leaving the descriptive text and re-iterate that information in section 4.1
in the form of a list when you enumerate the elements, which I think would
improve readability, something like the following:

   " Below, we describe the RPID elements in detail.  The following RPID
elements 
     extend the PIDF <status> element:    
       <activities> - what the presentity is doing, based on an enumeration 
                      of <activity> elements
       <idle> - whether the contact is idle
       <placetype> - in which type of place the presentity is
       <privacy> - whether the presentity is in a public or private space
       <sphere> - overall role of the presentity 

     The following RPID elements extend the PIDF <tuple> element:
       <class> - grouping identifier for a tuple
       <contacttype> - type of the tuple
       <relationship> - relationship of the tuple to another presentity "

Section 3 - I don't the example needs the parenthesis. It reads quite well
without. 

Section 4.6 - Title should be "Placetype Element" (or "Place-type Element"
depending upon how you resolve Paul's comment)

Regards, 
Mary H. Barnes