Subject: RE: [Simple] New version of XCAP usage for manipulating presence document contents

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:35:21 +0300

Hi,

Below some comments to the draft. I will send all nits directly to
Markus.

Page 1, first paragraph:
Contains reference to RFC2026. Should be updated to RFC 3668

Section 1, introduction:
This section contains quite a lot requirement/use case text. This is
probably ok but I was wondering if this is really needed for WG draft?

Section 5, first parapraph:
"
The XML [5] format of the presence information (PIDF) is defined in
[3] and its extensions. 
"

Change to ->

"  
The XML [5] format of the presence information (PIDF) is defined in
PIDF [3]. PIDF also defines a mechanism how presence documents can be
extended.
" 

"
The PIDF defines the presence information to
consist of the root element 'presence' including 'tuples' which
contain a mandatory status element, a communication mean specific
presence attribute and other markups.
" 

Change to ->

"The PIDF defines the presence information to consist of the root
element 'presence'. The 'presence' element can contain 'tuple' elements
which contain a mandatory status element, a communication mean specific
presence attribute and other markups. 
"

Section 6:
This section sound very vague. Especially when document doesn't by
itself define any XML schema. It might be good to add some text explain
what this computed data is.

Section 7:
"There are no constraints on the document beyond those described in
the XML schemas and [3].
"			
To what other schemas this section refers to than PIDF schema or what
are those other schemas?

Section 10:
"
The XML schema definition for the presence information can be found
from [3] and its extensions.
"

Change to ->

"
The XML schema definition for the presence information can be found
from PIDF [3]. PIDF presence document can also contain extensions like
RPID [ref].
"

Section 11, example:
For me this example is not totally clear in what it tries to
demonstrate. I think it tries to show an example what kind of presence
document can be published using XCAP. However, I could also ready it as
what PS should directly put into notifications which it sends to the
watchers. There could be more text saying that this is the presence
document provided from XCAP client to XCAP server.

Section 13.1,
"
Description: Pidf-manipulation application usage defines how XCAP is
used to manipulate the contents of presence documents in Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) based presence systems.
"

Change to ->

"
Description: PIDF-manipulation application usage defines how XCAP is
used to manipulate the contents of PIDF based presence documents. 
"

- Mikko

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of ext [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 5:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Simple] New version of XCAP usage for manipulating 
> presence document contents
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have submitted a new version on the XCAP application usage 
> for manipulating the content of PIDF presence document, 
> previously known as XCAP usage for presence publishing. 
> 
> You can find it at: 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-isomaki-simple-xcap-
pidf-manipulation-usage-00.txt
(Note that actually this has been approved as SIMPLE WG item, but due to
my typo, it is still named as an individual draft.)

The main idea of the draft is to complement SIP PUBLISH to allow the
presentity to manipulate device independent "hard state" presence
information. This hard state information would be fed to the presence
composition process as one input alongside the PUA views published using
SIP.

There are no open issues as such within the draft, the updates compared
to the last version were mainly about better wording. However, there is
one big issue wrt. the latest discussion on SIP PUBLISH. There has been
a proposal (on SIP WG list) to enhance PUBLISH solution so that PUAs
would be able to learn the states set by each other and actually
override such states. If this is brought forward PUBLISH will really
start overlapping with the XCAP usage defined here. I will continue this
discussion on SIP WG mailing list.

Regards,
	Markus   

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

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