Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-simple-presence - A Presence Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to Proposed Standard

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

Ack!

  paf

On måndag, feb 3, 2003, at 20:41 Europe/Stockholm, 
ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:

> 	Please return the full line with your position.
>
>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain
>
>
> Ned Freed           [   ]     [   ]       [ X ]      [   ]
>
> [My concern can easily be addressed by an RFC Editor note; no need to 
> delay the
> document for it]
>
> The (brief) discussion of the pres: URL in draft-ietf-simple-presence
> concerns me. It says:
>
>    A presentity is identified in the most general way through a 
> presence
>    URI [3], which is of the form pres:user@domain. These URIs are
>    protocol independent. They are resolved to protocol specific URIs,
>    such as a SIP or SIPS URI, through domain-specific mapping policies.
>
> This doesn't make it clear that while the mapping policies may vary 
> from
> domain to domain, the way those policies are expressed does not. I
> suggest changing this to read:
>
>    A presentity is identified in the most general way through a 
> presence
>    URI [3], which is of the form pres:user@domain. These URIs are
>    protocol independent. They are resolved to protocol specific URIs,
>    such as a SIP or SIPS URI, through the mapping algorithm specified 
> in
>    [5] and domain-specific mapping policies.
>
> One additional nit: These drafts have reference entries of the form:
>
>    [5] D. H. Crocker and J. Peterson, "Address resolution for instant
>    messaging and presence," internet draft, Internet Engineering Task
>    Force, Dec. 2002.  Work in progress.
>
> I really don't like this: I want to see the name of the Internet Draft 
> in there
> somewhere. Perhaps some folks keep a mapppint of the draft titles to 
> draft
> id name in their heads, but I'm not one of them so this omission makes
> chasing the references fairly painful.
>
> 				Ned