Subject: [Simple] publishing presence state - sip and pres uris (again)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:40:22 +0200

Hi, please could you check my questions?

Thank you,
Silvestr

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:21 PM
>To: Peknik Silvestr
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Simple] publishing presence state - sip and pres uris
>
>This can happen, yes. The presence data model draft (out shortly as an
>RFC) does say you shouldn't do this - that the URI in the SUBSCRIBE or 
>PUBLISH should match that in the document.

What is the relation between To header and r-URI? Currently it seems to
me that the client should set both to the same value, but r-URI can be
changed by proxies. If this is the case, why not to use To header
instead of r-URI for identifying the target of the request? And if the
r-URI can not be changed, what is the purpose of To header?

>
>That said, the presence server should know that the pres and sip URI
are
>equivalent, and thus even though the R-uri identifies the SIP URI, the 
>document should be applied to the presentity URI sip:[email-masked]
as
>well. Consequently, a SUBSCRIBE request for sip:[email-masked] would 
>return a presence document whose entity attribute is
sip:[email-masked].

I guess there is typo - it should say:
...applied to the presentity URI pres:[email-masked] as well...
Am I right?

Thank you,
Silvestr Peknik

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