Subject: Re: [Simple] How to show presentity's relative service preference

From: "Brian McColgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:05:25 -0400

Hi all,

There seems to be a few issues 'at work' here, and the discussion 'so
far' may be trying to merge several problems together.  

The first is unambiguously trying to identify a contact for an
associated service/application.  Not sure whether this is an issue, may
be more of a 'best practice' or 'prescribed guideline' on how to achieve
this.  

How does a watcher interpret or deal with the 'contact' element in
scenarios whereby one tuple (corresponding to a presentity) may not have
any contact elements?  IETF rfc3863 (section 4.1.5) seems to try and
steer away from defining the scope of a 'contact' element in one tuple
and it's applicability or scope within another.  

Finally, how do we go about identifying or expressing a presentities
preference for one service over another?  Do we need to include a
separate indication of 'service preference' in the context of PIDF _OR_
is there sufficient detail within the PIDF to infer or derive a given
presentities preference for one service, versus another similar service
(e.g. my preference of Google Talk over MSN)?

Perhaps this will help provide a 'frame of reference' for our SIP/SIMPLE
experts within the IETF to help provide some guidance or
recommendations.

Kind Regards,

Brian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple