Subject: [Simple] Question on Update of "activities" status

From: Boehmer Bernhard Com Berlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:35:22 +0200

Hi,
I have a question related presence updates.
Consider the scenario where you set an "activities"
value "busy". After a while your status changes 
and you want to remove the "busy" state information.
Since several "activities" are possible simple overriding
with another "activities" value is not possible.
How can this be done? Can somebody help me?
		Thanks Bernhard

___________________________
 Dr. Bernhard Böhmer
 Systems Engineering
 Siemens AG Communications,
 Mobile Networks AS BD C
 Siemensdamm 50, Berlin
 Fon: +49-30-386-22756
 Mobile: +49-178-7700119

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:19:30 -0400

You'd update the tuple, and simply not include the busy indication 
anymore. This update can be done by publishing the entire presence 
document, or by using the partial publication work in progress.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: "Paul Golding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:23:54 +0100

Hi All,

Could anyone tell me how contact blocking is achieved with SIMPLE? In other
words, how can I appear "offline" to a particular contact, but not to
everyone?

Many thanks
Paul G.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:16:42 -0400

You would use xcap to manipulate a presence authorization document 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-03.txt) 
and include a rule that matches that particular watcher. The rule would 
have a <sub-handling> of polite-block.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Qian Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:00:05 +0800

But  how can I appear "happy" to a particular contact, and appear "angry" to others?

Best Regards     
Qian Sun
Application & Software Dept.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd

--------------------------------------------------
Phone: +86 755 28979564
Email: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:35:47 -0400

Right now, you cannot. This is a capability we have been discussing 
within the context of advanced composition policies, and is not 
something you can currently control via the authroization document 
format. I just posted on this in a separate thread.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: "Paul Golding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:52:54 +0100

In the case of mobile users, it would be desirable to have a flag to
indicate contact blocking is required whenever the user is roaming (to
control IM usage where roaming charges might otherwise be prohibitive).

This flag "block contact when roaming" should be settable on a per user
basis, or globally.

Am I right in thinking that one solution would be an additional state in the
<sub-handling> field for processing presence rules?

-Paul G

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rosenberg
Sent: 22 September 2005 18:36
To: Qian Sun
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] contact blocking

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:14:48 -0400

> This flag "block contact when roaming" should be settable on a per user

Block when *who* is roaming? The device whose contact it is? Or the watcher?

How would the PS know?

If you don't want your contact given to people when you are roaming, you 
can just not publish it.

Or is it that when roaming, you only want to publish your contact to 
certain people - those that you are willing to pay a premium to talk to?

You could publish your contact with an attribute indicating that you are 
roaming. And then you could have rules, based on that attribute, about 
who to publish it to.

	Paul K

>>But  how can I appear "happy" to a particular contact, and appear "angry"
> 
> to others?
> 
>>Best Regards     
>>Qian Sun
>>>(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-03.t
> 
> xt) 
> 
>>>>Could anyone tell me how contact blocking is achieved with SIMPLE? In
> 
> other
>

---

From: "Paul Golding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:05:52 +0100

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your reply. I realise that my email was ambiguous (with the word
"contact")....

The need is for a roaming IM user to block selectively any (or all) of his
buddies (who may or may not be roaming themselves, but that is not the
issue). The motivation is to control costs where the roaming user is
required to pay roaming charges to send/receive mobile data from his device.
In effect, when roaming, the user would appear "offline" to those buddies
who were marked as "block whilst I roam" (for want of a better state name).

Assume that the PS would know that the user is roaming via some kind of
back-end interface (which might be to an HLR or some other core-network
apparatus in a mobile network).

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 26 September 2005 16:15
To: Paul Golding
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] contact blocking

How would the PS know?

	Paul K