Subject: [Simple] Pet names instead of nickname negotiation?

From: "Beck01, Wolfgang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:57:52 +0200

In a pet name system, the client maintains a mapping between SIP-AoR
and locally unique, short identifiers -- the pet names. Instead of
displaying a SIP-AoR to the user, the client displays the corresponding
pet name. When the user enters a pet name, the client replaces it with the
corresponding SIP-AoR.

To the user, this looks much like a traditional nickname system.

The owner of a SIP-AoR can give recipients a hint of her preferred pet
name. If a recipient detects that the preferred pet name is already
in use, it assigns a derived pet name. This can be done by simply adding
a digit, so a pet name 'alice' would become 'alice1'. Alternatively, the
user can be prompted to assign a locally unique pet name. The SIP-AoR, the
preferred pet name, and the selected pet name should be accessible to
the recipient user.

A pet name system requires little changes, just a header indicating
the preferred pet name. This header isn't even necessary, as the recipient
user could be prompted for a pet name whenever a new SIP-AoR is received. 

Pet names could also play a role in P2PSIP environments, where globally
unique names need to be selected randomly in absence of a central
instance handling duplicates.

Wolfgang

--
T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH 
Supervisory Board: René Obermann (Chairman) 
Executive Committee: Helmut Binder, Albert Henn, Olaf Heyden*, Katrin Horstmann, Ulrich Kemp, 
Wilfried Peters*, Dr. Herbert Schaaff*, Zvezdana Seeger* 
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55933 
Registered office: Frankfurt am Main 
WEEE -Reg.-No. DE87523644 
*Member of the Board of Directors as defined under section 35 GmbHG

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:10:15 -0700

> preferred pet name, and the selected pet name should be accessible to

The point of a petname system is that the petname is always assigned by
the recipient. Enabling the sender to suggest a petname is contrary to
the meaning and design of a petname system.

See here:

http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/petnames/IntroPetNames.html

For a use of petnames in the context of a real-time communication
system, see here:

http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0165.html#rec-petname

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Beck01, Wolfgang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:35:08 +0200

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> The point of a petname system is that the petname is always 
> assigned by the recipient. Enabling the sender to suggest a 
> petname is contrary to the meaning and design of a petname system.
> 
Who chooses the petname is irrelevant. The point of the petname
is that it is only visible to the recipient.

Pet name systems resemble NAT in a way. You set up a private identifier
space and map a globally unique identifier to a private identifier
and vice versa.

The idea of the sender giving a hint about a possible pet name
is just to relieve the recipient from being prompted for
some meaningful pet name every time he sees a new SIP-AoR.

Wolfgang