Subject: [Simple] RPID <activities> element position

From: Fusco Antonio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:00:08 +0200

Hi, 

I think there's an inconsistency between PDM-02 and RPID-07 drafts:
while in RPID-05 the <activities> element is used within
<person><status>, in the last draft it is used within <person> (in the
example at page 22). 

Is it ok? And if it's ok, do we need a <status> element in the presence
data model?

Thanks, 

Tony

________________________________________________

Antonio Fusco

Telecom Italia S.p.A.

TILAB - StarSIP C-based platform (SeaSIP), StarSIP Java-based platform,
StarSIP SCE

Service and Platform Innovation - Service Control Platforms

Via Reiss Romoli 274

I-10148 Torino (Italy)

Tel. +39 011 228 5124

E-mail mailto:[email-masked]

________________________

Visit us @ http://starsip.telecomitalialab.com
<http://starsip.telecomitalialab.com/> 

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 07:29:19 -0400

This inconsistency is a result of me having not yet updated the PDM 
document. <status> has been a never-ending source of confusion, in terms 
of determining whether an element is a status (in which case it goes in 
there) or not (in which case it doesnt). As such, the idea was to remove 
the status element within person and device, so everything is underneath 
person and device directly. That will be reflected in the PDM revision 
coming shortly.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

Fusco Antonio wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think there’s an inconsistency between PDM-02 and RPID-07 drafts: 
> Is it ok? And if it’s ok, do we need a <status> element in the presence 
> data model?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tony
> 
>  
> 
> E-mail _mailto:[email-masked]
> 
> ________________________
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
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