Subject: [Simple] Few more comments to presence-rules-06

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:04:45 +0200

Hi,

I traversed the presence rules draft 06 once again and I found few
issues there.

- In section 3.1.1.2 there is last paragraph noticing usage of TEL URI
and SIP URI for one user. There is bug in first combination of URIs
starting "A WR identity .."
  SIP with phone to SIP but should be SIP with phone to TEL
  in the reverse direction I would prefer to mention SIP URI with the
phone number instead of pure SIP URI

- In section 3.3.2.14 third paragraph first sentence. 
"Another consequence of this definition is that the interpretation of
 the <provide-unknown-attribute> element can change should the
 presence server be upgraded with a new schema that defines
 authorization rules for elements included in a <provide-unknown-
 attribute>."
This sentence makes me really confused and I can't catch the idea.

Other issues are moreless cosmetic
- First paragraph of 3.1.1.2 contains "can can" sequence
- Last paragraph of 3.2.1 contains "is is" sequence
- In section 3.3.2 there is used <timestampt> element
- Permission definitions are in form: there is permission XXX realized
by element <XXX>. But provide unknown attribute permission violates this
convention. Similar deviation is in 3.3.2.15.

In addition, what was the reason to change <provide-device-id> to
<provide-deviceID>? It somehow breaks the conventions of provide-xxx
elements.

BR, Martin

Martin Hynar
Software Specialist

TietoEnator
Czech Software Center
Phone: +420 599 096 022
E-mail: [email-masked]

Vystavni 292/13
CZ-709 16 Ostrava

www.tietoenator.com

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