Subject: RE: [Simple] New I-D: presence data model and its relationship to our presence work

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:25:21 +0300

Hi,

<snip>

> 
> I'd like to try and see if we can agree on the following points:
> 
> 1. the data model makes sense,

I agree with the model that is presented in the I-D. I also think that
using tuples to represent services, device, and presentity is the best
choice for us at this point. As you point in the draft modeling these as
explicit XML element would be better choice but I think this should have
happened already in PIDF and changing that is probably now too late.

> 2. the data model gives people the flexibility they need to represent
> the systems they are interested in,

Yes

> 3. the data model makes it sufficiently clear about what a 
> tuple is to 
> create interoperable presence systems,
> 4. the plan of attack makes sense given the previous 3

About prescaps:
I think the proposed changes to prescaps make sense. Placing elements
directly below <tuple> is better than having them as <status>
attributes. It might make sense to split the current scheme so that
service elements would name own namespace and device elements their own.
However, I think that class could actually be service element and not
device element. I think it should possible to have both business and
personal services in same device.

About partial notify:
If current model where all information is wrapped inside tuples is
accepted then this works very well with partial notify drafts and there
should be no need to change the current mechanism.

One thing about Device ID:
In section 3.3 it is stated that selection of device id left to the
local policy of the device. Then in section 7.1 it is said that
non-presence events can be correlated to particular device using device
ID (for example information provided by cell phone network). 
The identifier used to identify particular device is probably decided by
the network or more specifically this information is somehow network
specific (for example GSM uses IMEI codes). In order for this
correlation to work I think device must know how particular network is
going to identify the device and device must use that identifier when
publishing presence information. This may be what draft currently says
but I think this could be spelled out more clearly. 

- Mikko

> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
> Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
> dynamicsoft
> [email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> 

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