Subject: RE: [lemonade] some questions in draft-ietf-lemonade-notifications-03

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:58:07 +0100

On Wed Aug  9 09:36:18 2006, Ben Last wrote:
> >"Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >>  If so, maybe it's more appropriate to send a notification after
> >> determining that the client is online (e.g. according to presence
> status
> >> of the client provided by presence enabler).
> >How do you think this approach?
> 
> Many presence systems allow the user to set their status as 
> "offline"
> (even though they're not really offline): the presence status is 
> aimed
> at other humans and gives the user's interruptability.  That may 
> not be
> appropriate for a server to use when determining whether to send new
> mail notifications.
> 
> 
True, but equally, most presence mechanisms have the concept of 
appearing offline by default, but allowing a directed presence to 
indicate they're online to certain endpoints. In general, I think 
this would be good enough - you'd simply have the client appear 
offline, but send a directed presence for the notification server.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

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

---

From: "Ben Last" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:14:13 +0100

Dave Cridland [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote on 09 August 2006 09:58:

>> Many presence systems allow the user to set their status as "offline"
aimed 
>> at other humans and gives the user's interruptability.  That may not 
>> be appropriate for a server to use when determining whether to send 
>> new mail notifications.
appearing offline by default, but allowing a
>directed presence to indicate they're online to certain endpoints. In
general, I think this would be good
>enough - you'd simply have the client appear offline, but send a
directed presence for the notification server.

A very good point, but then you have the problem that every presence
client potentially needs to keep adding directed presence information
for a new endpoint for each new server use case that crops up, and the
relatively simple notion of presence as "user's interruptability"
becomes overloaded by all sorts of other semantics.  Plus the presence
information on a given client may be handled by some IM application that
doesn't have any programmatic way to add new sorts of directed presence.

Regards
Ben
EMCC Software Ltd