Subject: RE: [Simple] New version of XCAP PIDF manipulation draft [nits]

From: Biot Olivier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:44:59 +0200

Hello Markus,

Some nits I found so far:

Throughout the document AUID is being defined as Application ***Unique*** ID
while XCAP defines it as Application ***Usage*** ID. It is obvious from the
XCAP spec that the AUIDs ought to be unique.

1. Last paragraph before section 2:

   XCAP requires application usages to standardize several pieces of
   information, including an application unique ID (AUID), and an XML
   schema for the manipulated data. These are specified starting from
   the Section 4.

=> Replace with:

   XCAP requires application usages to standardize several pieces of
   information, including a unique application usage ID (AUID), and
   an XML schema for the manipulated data. These are specified
   starting from Section 4.

2. Header of section 3

	4.  Application Unique ID

=> Replace with:

	4.  Application Usage ID

Then another 2 nits in section 12 (1st sentence of each paragraph):

	Presence document may contain information that is highly sensitive.
	[...]
	XCAP base specification mandates that all XCAP servers MUST
implement

=> Replace with:

	A presence document may contain information that is highly
sensitive.
	[...]
	The XCAP base specification mandates that all XCAP servers MUST
implement

Finally the XCAP reference [2] still refers to
draft-rosenberg-simple-xcap-02 although that draft is now
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-02.

Regards,

Olivier Biot

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Markus Isomaki
|
|
|Hi,
|
|Just to note that a new version of XCAP usage for manipulating 
|presence document contents has been available for a while, see:
|http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xcap-pidf
|-manipulation-usage-00.txt
|
|The main difference to the previous version 
|(draft-isomaki-...) is that there is more clarifying text on 
|the relationship of this spec and SIP PUBLISH (in Chapter 3), 
|and also the security considerations has been updated.
|
|Markus

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:35:03 +0300

Hi Oliver,

Thanks a lot for your comments. It's good to have some detailed review for this draft.

> XCAP spec that the AUIDs ought to be unique.

You are right. This needs to be corrected.
 
>    an XML schema for the manipulated data. These are specified

OK.

> 	4.  Application Usage ID

OK.

> 	The XCAP base specification mandates that all XCAP servers MUST

OK.

> draft-ietf-simple-xcap-02.

OK, this should be changed, although in the final RFC this has to reference to the eventual XCAP RFC.

> Olivier Biot

Markus