Subject: [Simple] Subscription pending for authorization and later authorization fails

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:17:48 +0530

Hi,
 
  As per RFC 3856 
    In the case of a pending subscription, when final authorization is
   determined, a NOTIFY can be sent.  If the result of the authorization
   decision was success, a NOTIFY SHOULD be sent and SHOULD contain a
   presence document with the current state of the presentity.  If the
   subscription is rejected, a NOTIFY MAY be sent.  As described in RFC
   3265 [2], the Subscription-State header field indicates the state of
   the subscription.

After receiving 202 for the initial SUBSCRIBE, the Notifier SHOULD send
NOTIFY with terminated state with reason as 'rejected'. RFC says 'MAY',
in case of authorization rejection how would subscriber know the
rejection if no NOTIFY is sent after initial NOTIFY with pending state.
 
Regards
Ajay Kasam
9986016520
     
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Vikas Tandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:46:26 +0530

Is it something to do with Soft REJECT. In this case the subscriber will
always get the status as pending.
regards,
Vikas

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Simple] Subscription pending for authorization and
laterauthorization fails

Hi,
 
  As per RFC 3856 

After receiving 202 for the initial SUBSCRIBE, the Notifier SHOULD send
NOTIFY with terminated state with reason as 'rejected'. RFC says 'MAY', in
case of authorization rejection how would subscriber know the rejection if
no NOTIFY is sent after initial NOTIFY with pending state.
 
Regards
Ajay Kasam
9986016520

---

From: songyongchao <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:34:01 +0800

Hi!

In draft "draft-rosenberg-simple-simple-00", Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

>SIMPLE provides for both presence and IM capabilities.  Though both

   of these fit underneath the broad SIMPLE umbrella, they are well

   separated from each other and are supported by different sets of

   specifications. 

>RFC 4662 [4] defines an extension

      to RFC 3265 that allows a client to subscribe to a list of

      resources using a single subscription.  The server, called a

      Resource List Server (RLS) will "expand" the subscription and

      subscribe to each individual member of the list.  Its primary

      usage with presence is to allow subscriptions to "buddy lists".

      Without RFC 4662, a UA would need to subscribe to each presentity

      individually.  With RFC 4662, they can have a single subscription

      to all buddies.  A user can manage the entries in their buddy list

      using the provisioning mechanisms in Section 2.4.

I come up with the idea that do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2P or
P2PSIP

to realize presence and IM services? 

If so, how do we equip peers with SIMPLE?

And do we need the central servers like RLS as defined in RFC4662

 to realize list subscription and notification in P2P?

 Because list subscription and notification for a buddy list get the user
free from

 frequently sending single SUBSCRIBE and processing of single NOTIFY
message.

If we don't want to introduce the servers like RLS into P2P, how can we
distribute

list subscription and notification method in P2P?

Because P2P is very different fro C/S, there are a lot of questions to be
discussed.

---

From: "Vikas Tandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:52:08 +0530

Dear Songyongchao,
 
I'm not sure how well this goes with the SIMPLE concepts. However doing P2P
will increase the traffic between the peers since every presence update
needs to be sent to every buddy in the buddylist which is heavy on the
mobile devices and networks. Also P2P will not help in having other services
utilize presence information. 
 
Would be interesting to know more from other experts on the list.
 
Regards,
Vikas Tandon

From: songyongchao [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 3:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Simple] Do we need to introduce SIMPLE into P2P to realize
presence and IM services?

Hi!

   specifications.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:02:40 -0400

I think if the intent is a soft reject then its more likely that the 
subscriber will get out of pending and get a status that is a lie.

	Paul

Vikas Tandon wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 29, 2007 12:18 PM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [Simple] Subscription pending for authorization and 
> laterauthorization fails
> 
> Hi,
>  
>   As per RFC 3856
>    presence document with the current state of the presentity.*  If the
>    subscription is rejected, a NOTIFY MAY be sent.*  As described in RFC
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>