Subject: [Simple] New Indirect publication draft

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:11:43 +0200

Hi:

We have just submitted a draft that discusses the issue of indirect 
publication. The first part of the draft focuses on location URIs, so, 
perhaps it is of not much interest to the SIMPLE WG.

Filename:	 draft-garcia-simple-indirect-presence-publish
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Indirect Presence Publication with the Session Initiation 
Protocol(SIP)
Creation_date:	 2008-02-18
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 12

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-simple-indirect-presence-publish-00.txt

Comments are welcome.

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

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

---

From: Qian Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:40:52 +0800

Hi,

Could  LCP Server as a presence source directly PUBLISH presentity's
location value to Presence Server?  Presence Server can compose a merged
PIDF document including presence information from different sources.

Cheers,
Qian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Miguel Garcia
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:12 PM
To: SIMPLE mailing list
Cc: Tschofenig Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); Henning Schulzrinne
Subject: [Simple] New Indirect publication draft

Hi:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-simple-indirect-presence-pu
blish-00.txt

Comments are welcome.

/Miguel

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:42:10 +0200

Hi Qian:

Yes, an LCP server can publish the presentity's PIDF-LO to the presence 
server. The problem here is that, under normal circumstances, the 
presence server will not merge this PIDF-LO with the current 
presentity's PIDF, because the presentity didn't publish location 
information in the first place, so presumably it doesn't even have 
presence authorization rules, etc.

/Miguel

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:26:21 +0200

Hi Miguel,

surely I am missing something,
but if it is only a presence authorization rules problem, then the 
presentity should in some way authorize the
presence server to receive information, better location information, 
from a specific LCP server
and then let the LCP server directly PUBLISH presentity's location value 
to Presence Server.

/Sal

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

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:08:14 +0200

To make this work like you said, you will need:

- A mechanism for authorizing external parties to do publications on 
your behalf. I am not sure if we have such mechanism in place.

- A mechanism for instructing the presence server to switch on/off your 
location information towards watchers. We do have this mechanism, and it 
is presence authorization rules. So, if in my device I have some UI 
entry that indicates "toggle location information", when I act upon it, 
the device will change the presence authorization rules.

What I am proposing is that the "toggle location information" in the UI 
will trigger a new (partial) PUBLISH from the presentity. I think it 
matches better with the general architecture of the presentity providing 
his location.

/Miguel

Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>> Yes, an LCP server can publish the presentity's PIDF-LO to the 
>> presence server. The problem here is that, under normal circumstances, 
>> the presence server will not merge this PIDF-LO with the current 
>>> Title:         Indirect Presence Publication with the Session 
>>> Initiation Protocol(SIP)

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:55:18 +0200

Hi,

in line

/Sal

> your behalf. I am not sure if we have such mechanism in place.
[Sal] I am not sure we have such mechanism, too.
However, as other standardization bodies (3GGP and OMA) are thinking to 
insert a PNA (Presence Network Agent) maybe we should start to think of 
a mechanism like this.

see also this draft: 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/simple/draft-rosen-simple-watcher-count-00.txt

>
> - A mechanism for instructing the presence server to switch on/off 
> your location information towards watchers. We do have this mechanism, 
> and it is presence authorization rules. So, if in my device I have 
> some UI entry that indicates "toggle location information", when I act 
> upon it, the device will change the presence authorization rules.
>
> What I am proposing is that the "toggle location information" in the 
> UI will trigger a new (partial) PUBLISH from the presentity. I think 
> it matches better with the general architecture of the presentity 
> providing his location.
[Sal] Of course what I am suggesting would require some form of 
authorization mechanism, and people could start to argue about the 
complexity of the delegation mechanism.
However also in your proposal, you want to change in some way the 
Presence Server behavior and let it to change/update the presence 
information  not only when it receives a PUBLISH, but also via the 
de-reference mechanism.

>> and then let the LCP server directly PUBLISH presentity's location 
>> value to Presence Server.
>>
>> /Sal
>>
>> Miguel Garcia wrote:
>>> Hi Qian:
>>>
>>> presence server. The problem here is that, under normal 
>>> circumstances, the presence server will not merge this PIDF-LO with 
>>> the current presentity's PIDF, because the presentity didn't publish 
>>> location information in the first place, so presumably it doesn't 
>>> even have presence authorization rules, etc.
>>>
>>> /Miguel
>>>
>>>
>>> Qian Sun wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Hi,
>>>>

---

From: Qian Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:08:54 +0800

Hi,

Maybe we do not need the mechanism for authorizing external parties to do publications on your behalf, if the Presence Server trusts the PNA (or other AS).
In OMA, the IM server may directly publish the on/off status of presentity to the Presence Server without the authorization mechanism.

Qian

-----Original Message-----
From: Salvatore Loreto [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:55 PM
To: Miguel Garcia
Cc: Qian Sun; 'Tschofenig Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'SIMPLE mailing list'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'
Subject: Re: [Simple] New Indirect publication draft

Hi,

in line

/Sal

see also this draft:

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:27:18 +0200

If we going to do third party publications, for sure we need a mechanism 
for controlling authorization. Honestly, no matter whether you are in a 
controlled environment (such as the OMA architecture) or not. I wouldn't 
like that my operator suddenly starts disclosing my location information 
  without my permission, just because this information is coming from a 
trusted source.

Furthermore. We have discussed the issue of how we will need a mechanism 
for the end user to provide publication authorization rules. This will 
control the rules, but at the end of the day, if the LCP server does not 
want to provide the location information to the presence server, then 
such information won't be present in the PIDF.

In other words. We need a mechanism at the user's disposal for 
controlling when and how these indirect publications are done. The 
proposal to use third party publication is lame, IMHO, for privacy reasons.

/Miguel