Subject: [Simple] Data model - attempt at summary

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:26:53 -0400

After a brief absence, I find it difficult to reconnect to the 
discussion and its >>>>> layers.

I'm trying a slightly different approach in summarizing the issues on a 
web page, as I then might be able to update some of the differences and 
agreements:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/rpid/presence_model.html

I don't think anything that I'm proposing is more than a tweak and 
slight generalization of the existing data model. I believe the meaning 
to the watcher is clearly defined in all such cases, except that I don't 
sweep uncertainty under the rug.

If there are core assumptions that should be added, let me know.

I expect people to disagree with some of the assumptions, but it would 
also be helpful if we can move some of these bullets, possibly modified, 
into a common understanding section.

Henning

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:55:21 -0400

Henning,

I agree with some, but not all of these. I think the main points of 
dispute remain as they were throughout the threads:

* how overriding is handled
* whether or not the URI is an "index" for services/devices/persons
* whether or not a presence document can report conflicting information
* whether composition is watcher specific or not

I'll send separate notes on each to try and continue the discussion; I 
too cannot piece it back together from the many emails.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                        FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:43:32 +0300

I agree with the web page. 

I also think that ultimately it will be a good idea if meta-data can be
attached to the actual presence data to be used as a handle that the
composer can use according to its composer policy.

But both of these issues can be tackled at a later time.

Cheers,
AKi