Subject: Re: [Simple] RPID comments

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:25:21 -0400

Thanks for your comments; I think I have folded them all into the 
documents, as commented below.

Aki Niemi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Reviewed RPID at -04 and here are my findings. There were a couple of 

> - Nit: the hanging lists become hard to read with no empty lines between 
> entries. Hoever, I see this may be an xml2rfc bug, so I guess I'll take 
> it elsewhere.

Indeed; not my doing.

> 
> - In activities, while all elements may be used either with OPEN or 
> CLOSED status depending on the presentity's intent, this intent isn't 
> described very well, except for "busy". For some activities such as 
> "away" there seems to be a similar typical intent, which might be good 
> to add.

I added the same caveat for "away". There are clearly other activities 
where CLOSED is the likely activity. (Why would I set activity to 
'vacation' and still be OPEN?) However, since there are always weird 
"what-if" cases where OPEN is plausible, I don't see much point in 
trying to proscribe this. After all, the meaning of activity and 
reachability is largely orthogonal, except for the two 'away' variations.

> - In 4.4, why distinguish between different tuple types when defining 
> the <idle> element? I don't understand the second paragraph: What does 
> it mean when the <idle> "determines the idle time for the whole tuple"? 
> <idle> is always scoped to a single tuple irrespective of the tuple 
> type, no?

Removed, as I've also gotten rid of the whole <tuple-type> element.

> 
> - 4.5, should probably say something about the extensibility of the mood 
> element? That in addition to the enumerated values, more can be added 
> later (either freetext or registered).

Later discussion seems to indicate that the list is probably best seen 
as suggestions rather than an enumeration. There seems little practical 
value in having an IANA mood registry.

> 
> - 4.10, come to think of it now, it seems that the CIPID <icon> should 
> actually be an RPID element just like the status-icon is. Is there a 
> difference other than that <icon> is a sibling of <presentity> or 
> <tuple> whereas <status-icon> is of <status>?

I agree that this can be in either, but I suspect once you move the 
<icon>, pretty much all the other CIPID elements can conceivably move as 
well, defeating the purpose of the split. I'd rather leave this alone.

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

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:55:53 -0400

> value in having an IANA mood registry.

Yes, moods can be very personal. For instance, that broker may well be 
in the mood "Buy Acme"!

	Paul