Subject: Re: [Simple] Three dimensions of service

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:04:58 -0500

Brian,

Its clear that we can define enough variables to do it. You are 
proposing that *one* variable is enough to do it. That is an existence 
proof.

I am suggesting that people look at more than one thing. If you have a 
new kind of service, then you need to find a way to describe it so that 
others can determine if they can interoperate. Ideally you would be able 
to do it with the entities already defined. If not, then you need a new 
kind of entity. We should strive to have enough types to make the 
distinctions that are required.

Perhaps the key difference here is what someone must do to handle a case 
when they don't have something suitable to describe what they have:
- register a new value in an IANA registry
- define a new xml entity

If its really necessary, we can define one or more additional entities 
that contain IANA defined enumeration values. But if so, I hope the 
entities can be defined to mean something other than identifying a 
particular proprietary protocol tunneled in sip.

	Paul

Brian Rosen wrote:
> There is our disconnect.
> 
> You think you can invent enough variables to do that, and I think you can't.
> Another way to look at that is that if you have more than a handful of
> variables, no human can determine if two services are compatible, even if
> you could figure out how to display the variation in an icon.  You are
> talking about way more than a handful.
> 
> This is reverse engineering of service from capabilities, and we usually
> think of such things as very hard.  You are guessing that half duplex +
> floor control + audio is a PTT service.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  If you want
> to declare that the only possible use for half duplex + floor control +
> audio is a PTT service, then maybe.  I suspect we don't want to go there.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:31 PM
>>To: Adam Roach
>>Cc: Brian Rosen; 'Simple WG'; 'Aki Niemi'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'
>>Subject: Re: [Simple] Three dimensions of service
>>
>>I think there is no reason to render icons that display what the service
>>"is". What is useful is to render icons that indicate how the watcher
>>may *use* the service. That is determined by the understanding that the
>>watcher device has understanding of the published info as well as having
>>software that allows the user to do stuff with it.
>>
>>So what is important is that the watcher be able to figure out enough to
>>make that determination. If the watcher has something that can make use
>>of a service that is half duplex voice with some particular described
>>form of floor control, and if it wants to display that as a PTT icon,
>>then fine. If the presence data doesn't sufficiently describe this -
>>e.g. it doesn't say what kind of floor control is required - then it is
>>broken.
>>
>>	Paul
>>
>>Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>>>Brian Rosen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yep, I understand that you think this is possible. I don't. Try to
>>>>think of what it is that the icon would look like that would show you
>>>>the difference between, say, a PTT that was half duplex and another
>>>>that was full duplex. Is that what you want to see?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe the prospect of "full duplex PTT" is so painfully contrived as
>>>to be pretty much worthless as an example.
>>>
>>>/a
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Simple mailing list
>>>[email-masked]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>>>
>>
> 
> 

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