Subject: Re: [Simple] URI for Resource Lists

From: "Alexeitsev, D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:27:32 +0200

Hello Paul,

Thanks for the reply.

>I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to do this, and I'm not convinced 
>it needs to be a matter for IETF standardization.

Well in my opinion if there are multitude of ways to do something, then it is definitely a topic for standardisation. In the case of resource lists I think even an information description of a common way for RLS naming would be helpful. 

Using a domain name differentiation is a nice one, are there any other views on the list? 

>Personally, I have been thinking that a resource list server would 
>normally have a domain name distinct from that normally used for "user" 
>AORs.

>For instance:
>
>- User AORs:
>   sip:[email-masked]
>
>- Resource list AORs:
>   sip:[email-masked]
>   sip:[email-masked]

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:28:16 -0400

A few comments here.

Firstly, the XCAP resource list usage 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-03.txt) 
provides a way for clients to request and/or create URIs for resource 
lists. This specification mandates that the server ensure that the URI 
provided for the resource list is unique within the domain. As you point 
out, this uniqueness requirement spans both other resource list URIs, 
and regular users in that domain. It would also include any other SIP 
resources  - voicemail servers, applications, etc.

I don't think we need to dictate how this gets done. I diagree that, 
just because there is variability, there needs to be standardization. 
Variability requires standardization only when, if one entity does 
something different than another, there are interop problems. I don't 
believe that is the case here. I believe this is squarely in the area of 
*policy*, and that is something we should stay far away from. Just like 
we don't dictate that your SIP URI has to be 
sip:<firstname>.<lastname>@your-domain.com, we should not dictate how 
resource list URIs look like.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

Alexeitsev, D wrote:

> Hello Paul,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> 
>> I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to do this, and I'm not
>> convinced it needs to be a matter for IETF standardization.
> 
> 
> Well in my opinion if there are multitude of ways to do something,
> then it is definitely a topic for standardisation. In the case of
> resource lists I think even an information description of a common
> way for RLS naming would be helpful.
> 
>>  normally have a domain name distinct from that normally used for
>> "user" AORs.
> 
> 
>> For instance:
>> 
>> - User AORs: sip:[email-masked]
>> 
>> - Resource list AORs: sip:[email-masked] 
> _______________________________________________ Simple mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> 

-- 
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